IMPORTANT POINT
The requirement to communicate grounds for arrest is a constitutional obligation; non-compliance renders the arrest illegal, providing grounds for bail even under stringent statutory provisions.

ORDER :

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

Petitioners in these applications seek regular bail under section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNSS '). Since the accused in all these applications are alleged to have committed offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act'), and they claim the right to be released on bail alleging that the grounds for arrest have not been communicated, the cases are being disposed by this common order.

2. I have heard Sri. Babu S. Nair, Sri. N.A. Shafeek, Sri. K.K.Dheerendra Krishnan, Smt. Sai Pooja and Smt. Fathima Sulfath N.B, the learned counsel for the respective petitioners. It was contended that the entire allegations against the petitioners are false and they are all innocent. Apart from contending that there is a total absence of any material to connect the petitioners with the offence, the learned counsel submitted that the constitutional right of beinginformed of the grounds for arrest was not complied with, and therefore, the accused ought to be released forthwith.

3. Sri. K.A Noushad, the learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that the petitioners in each of these cases are involved in serious offences for possession of commercial quantities of narcotic drugs, and therefore, the rigour under section 37 of the NDPS Act applies. It was also submitted that the materials collected during investigation clearly point to the guilt of the accused, and therefore, there is no reason to release them on bail. As regards the contention based on the mandate of Article 22 of the Constitution of India, that the grounds for arrest must be informed to the arrestee, it was pointed out that the said requirement has been complied with scrupulously and the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are vague and not specific.

4. I have considered the rival contentions and have perused the relevant records from the case diary, copies of which were furnished by the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Two issues that require consideration are (i) Whether the long period of custody without trial, entitles the accused to be released on bail, especially when they are alleged to have committed offences for possessing commercial quantities of narcotic drugs? and (ii) Whether the grounds for arrest have been communicated to thepetitioners in these cases at the time of arrest?

Issue No. (i). Whether the long period of custody without trial entitles the accused to be released on bail, especially when they are alleged to have committed offences for possessing commercial quantities of narcotic drugs?

6. Petitioners in these bail applications are all alleged to have committed offences under the NDPS Act for possessing commercial quantities of narcotic drugs. All of them are arrayed as accused in different crimes. Since the offence involves commercial quantity of narcotic drugs, the rigour under section 37 of the NDPS Act applies. In the decision in State of Kerala and Others v. Rajesh and Others [(2020) 12 SCC 122], it was observed that the scheme of section 37 of NDPS Act requires that the power to grant bail under the NDPS Act is subject to the limitation placed in the said provision over and apart from the restrictions under the procedural law and the twin conditions stipulated therein, are required to be satisfied. In all these cases, the Public Prosecutor has opposed the applications. Hence only if the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that an accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, can the accused be released on bail. In these cases, there are no materials to arrive at a conclusion that the respective accused are not guilty of the offences alleged and hence the rigour under section 37of NDPS Act is not diluted. Therefore, the question is whether the long period of detention by itself is sufficient to release the petitioners on bail.

7. General