2026 Supreme(Ker) 1186
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Kauser Edappagath, J.
Kamayaka Reeju – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By The Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Bail Appl. No. 4197 of 2026
Decided On : 05-08-2026
For the Petitioner: Sri.P.Mohamed Sabah, Sri.Libin Stanley, Smt.Saipooja, Sri.Sadik Ismayil, Smt.R.Gayathri, Sri.M.Mahin Hamza, Shri.Alwin Joseph, Sri.T.I.Safdarshah, Shri.Benson Ambrose, Smt.Rameesa P. A.
For the Respondent: Sri.V. Vinay, Sr. Pp
In NDPS cases, the communication of grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of BNSS is legally insufficient unless the specific quantity of the contraband seized is mentioned, as this determines the bailability of the offence.
Headnote:(A) Constitutional Law - Right to be informed of grounds of arrest - Article 22(1) and Section 47 BNSS - The requirement of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory statutory and constitutional requirement, not a mere formality; non-compliance constitutes a violation of fundamental rights to personal liberty. (Para 10)
(B) NDPS Act - Communication of grounds - Specification of quantity - In cases involving the NDPS Act, since the quantity of contraband determines whether the offence is bailable or non-bailable, the specification of the quantity is mandatory for the effective communication of the grounds of arrest. (Para 16, 18)
Issues: Whether the failure to specify the quantity of contraband in the grounds of arrest renders the arrest illegal under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of BNSS.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for regular bail in an ndps case where the legality of the arrest is challenged based on non-communication of grounds. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. the mandatory nature of informing an arrestee of the grounds of arrest under article 22(1) of the constitution and section 47 of bnss. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. judicial evolution regarding the requirement of providing written grounds of arrest to ensure fundamental rights. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
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.3 in Crime No.281/2026 of Chevayoor Police Station, Kozhikode District. The offence alleged is punishable under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, NDPS Act).
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 21.04.2026 at about 22:30 hours, the applicant, along with accused Nos.1 and 2, was found in possession of 108.28 grams of MDMA at Tokyo Lodge, Kozhikode, and thereby committed the above offence.
4. I have heard Sri.P. Mohamed Sabah, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.V. Vinay, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the requirement of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest is mandatory under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the BNSS and inasmuch as the applicant was not furnished with the grounds of arrest, his arrest was illegal and is liable to be released on bail. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that all legal formalities were complied with in accordance with Chapter V of the BNSS at the time of the arrest of the applicant. It is further submitted that the alleged incident occurred as part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant and hence she is not entitled to bail at this stage.
6. The applicant was arrested on 21.04.2026 and since then she is in judicial custody.
7. Though prima facie there are materials on record to connect the applicant with the crime, since the applicant has raised a question of absence of communication of the grounds of his arrest, let me consider the same.
8. Chapter V of BNSS, 2023 deals with the arrest of persons. Sub-section (1) of Section 35 of BNSS lists cases when police may arrest a person without a warrant. Section 47 of BNSS clearly states that every police officer or other person arresting any person without a warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India provides that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. Thus, the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory statutory and constitutional requirement. Noncompliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution will be a violation of the fundamental right of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. It will also amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.
9. The question whether failure to communicate written grounds of arrest would render the arrest illegal, necessitating the release of the accused, is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others [(2024) 7 SCC 576], while dealing with Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, has held that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. It was further held that a copy of written grounds of arrest should be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. In Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC