Court Rules Informing Live-in Partner's Father Does Not Fulfill Legal Requirement for Arrest Notification

In a significant ruling regarding the procedural rights of the accused, the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam has emphasized the importance of strictly adhering to arrest notification protocols. Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath granted bail to an individual charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), observing that authorities failed to properly communicate the grounds of arrest to the accused’s family as required by statutory provisions.

Procedural Lapses in Custody

The petitioner, Muhashib, was taken into custody on June 11, 2026, by the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad in Ernakulam for the alleged possession of 6.031 grams of MDMA. While the prosecution maintained that the standard procedures were followed, the defense argued that the mandatory requirement to inform the arrestee’s relatives was overlooked, thereby rendering the detention illegal.

Upon investigation, the court found that although the grounds of arrest were conveyed to the accused, the police had only reached out to the father of the petitioner’s live-in partner—who was also a co-accused in the same case. The court clarified that because the petitioner and his partner were not legally married, the partner's father could not be considered a relative of the petitioner.

Applying Constitutional Safeguards

The decision relies on the settled legal principle that informing a person of the grounds for their arrest is a mandatory constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The Court underscored that Section 48 of the BNSS mandates notifying family members or friends to enable them to make necessary arrangements for the arrestee's defense.

Citing previous authoritative precedents, including the Supreme Court’s stance in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh , the High Court held that failing to notify the actual near relatives makes the arrest substantively illegal.

Key Observations

Highlighting the gravity of these procedural standards, the Court remarked:

"The father of the accused No. 2 cannot be termed as a relative of the applicant, inasmuch as the applicant and the accused No. 2 are not legally married. There is nothing in the mahazar , remand report or case diary to show that the intimation regarding the arrest of the applicant was communicated to the father of the accused No. 2 as instructed by the applicant."

Furthermore, the Court noted:

"It is now well settled that the requirement of informing a person of the grounds for arrest is a mandatory requirement ... and absence of the same would render the arrest illegal."

The Path Forward for Bail

Given the breach of the statutory notification requirement, the Court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to relief. The bail was granted subject to strict conditions, including the execution of a bond for ₹1,00,000 with two solvent sureties. The applicant is further required to cooperate with the ongoing investigation and report regularly to the investigating officer.

This ruling serves as a stern reminder to law enforcement agencies that deviations from the procedural mandates of the BNSS, even in sensitive or urgent drug-related cases, can provide significant grounds for the release of an accused. It underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that basic human rights and legal safeguards remain protected throughout the investigative process.