The lack of communication regarding the grounds of arrest renders the arrest illegal, entitling the accused to bail under established legal principles.

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 is the accused No.6 in Crime No.75/2025 of Palluruthy Police Station, Ernakulam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Section 22 (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 the applicant and accused Nos. 1 to 5 entered into a conspiracy and smuggled narcotic drugs with the help of accused Nos. 3 and 5. The police seized 108.9378 grams of MDMA packed in 5 zip-lock covers. The accused No.1 is alleged to have stored these drugs for sale inside a bag in the cupboard of a rented house and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Francis Assisi, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.K.A.Noushad, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 25.03.2025, and the grounds of arrest were not communicated in accordance with the law at the time of his arrest. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, opposed the bail application and submitted that the grounds of arrest were duly communicated.

6. Though prima facie there are materials on record to connect the applicant with the crime, since the applicant has raised the question of absence of communication of the grounds of his arrest, let me consider the same.

7. It is now well settled that the requirement of informing 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] and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356). The Supreme Court in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228) has held that the grounds of arrest should not only be provided to the arrestee but also to his family members and relatives so that necessary arrangements are made to secure the release of the person arrested at the earliest possible opportunity so as to make the mandate of Art.22(1) meaningful and effective, failing which, such arrest would be rendered illegal. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Alvin Riby v. State of Kerala (2025 KER 67079) following Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra) held that failure to communicate the grounds of arrest to the near relatives renders the arrest illegal.

8. In this case, the applicant, who was in judicial custody in connection with another case, was produced on a production warrant pursuant to an application filed by the investigating officer to record his arrest. Accordingly, he was produced, and his arrest was recorded. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, relying on the dictum laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) and Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra), submitted that if a person is arrested on a warrant, if the warrant is read over to him, that is sufficient compliance with the requirement that he should be informed of the grounds of his arrest. It was further submitted that in such circumstances, the communication of the grounds for arrest in writing separately to the accused or his relative is not necessary.

9. In Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) and Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra), the warrant referred to was the warrant issued under Section 70 of Cr.P.C.