Failure to inform arrest grounds constitutes an illegal arrest, but compliance can be met by notifying relevant authorities, especially for foreign nationals.

ORDER :

Kauser Edappagath, J.

This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS ), seeking regular bail.

2. The applicant, a Tanzanian citizen who came to India to pursue his higher studies, is the accused No.5 in Crime No.1075/2024 of Kunnamkulam Police Station, Thrissur District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22 (c), 20(b) (ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the NDPS Act).

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 09/08/2024 at 12:45 p.m., the police party stopped the car bearing No. KL-46 T 8808, travelling from Erumappetty to Kunnamkulam and found accused Nos. 1 and 2 with 66.5 grams of MDMA and 2 kilograms of hashish oil. It is alleged that the applicant supplied the contraband to the accused Nos. 3 and 4, and they in turn sold it to the accused Nos. 1 and 2.

4. I have heard Sri. Shibin K.F., the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The learned counsel further submitted that there is total absence of any material to connect the applicant with the crime. The learned counsel also submitted that the constitutional right to be informed of the grounds for arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India was not complied with, and therefore, the applicant ought to be released forthwith. It was further submitted that the applicant was detained in custody beyond the period of twenty four hours from the time of his detention in violation of the constitutional and statutory prescriptions.

6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that the applicant is involved in a serious offence involving a commercial quantity of narcotic drug, and therefore, the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies. It was also submitted that the materials collected during the investigation clearly point to the guilt of the applicant and, therefore, there is no reason to release him on bail. As regards the contention based on the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS that the grounds of arrest must be informed to the arrestee and his near relatives, it was pointed out that the said requirement has been complied with scrupulously. It was further submitted that the applicant was produced before the Magistrate well within twenty four hours from the time of his detention/arrest, and hence the contention based on non-compliance of Article 22(2) of the Constitution is unsustainable.

7. On consideration of the rival contentions, the following three issues arise for consideration:

(i) Whether the grounds for arrest were communicated as mandated under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS ?

(ii) Whether the applicant was produced before the Magistrate beyond the period of 24 hours from the time of his effective detention?

(iii) Whether, on facts, the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted?

Point No.(i)

8. It is now well settled that the requirement to inform a person of the grounds for arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of BNSS , and absence of the same would render the arrest illegal [See. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others , (2024) 7 SCC 576 , Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 , Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others (2025 SCC OnLine SC 269)]. Recently, in