(A) Constitution of India - Articles 21 and 22 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) - Sections 47, 48 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)

(C), 23, 25, 27A, 28, 29.

(B) Criminal Procedure - Arrest and remand - Constitutional safeguards under Article 22(1) - Intimation of grounds of arrest to relatives - Must be given prior to production before the nearest Magistrate for transit remand - Failure to comply vitiates the arrest and entitles the accused to bail.

(C) Burden of proof - When an accused alleges non-compliance with Article 22(1) read with Sections 47 and 48 BNSS, the investigating agency has the burden to establish compliance.

(D) Timeframe - The expression “as soon as may be” in Article 22(1) - A delay of 13 hours in communicating grounds of arrest to a relative amounts to an infraction even if the grounds were furnished to the arrestee earlier - The two-hour rule in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) does not apply where the grounds have already been communicated to the arrestee. (E) Transit remand - It constitutes police custody under Section 167 BNSS - The Magistrate before whom the accused is first produced must verify compliance with Article 22(1) and Sections 47, 48 BNSS.

Facts of the case:
The applicants (accused Nos.4, 6 and 7) were arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau at Delhi in connection with recovery of 36.735 kg Hydroponic Cannabis and 3.942 kg Charas under the NDPS Act. They were produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Patiala House Court, New Delhi for transit remand and later brought to Kochi. The applicants contended that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to their relatives prior to their first production before the Magistrate at New Delhi, as required under Article 22(1) and Section 48 BNSS. For accused No.6, intimation to the father was given at 3.01 p.m. on the day of arrest while production (accepted by the court) was at 2.45 p.m., resulting in a delay. For accused Nos.4 and 7, no prior communication was established.

Findings of Court:
The constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) and Sections 47, 48 BNSS requires communication of grounds of arrest both to the arrestee and to his relative or friend prior to production before the nearest Magistrate for transit remand. This obligation cannot be deferred until production before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Non-compliance vitiates the arrest. For accused Nos.4 and 7, there was total non-compliance; for accused No.6, even if the later production time (6.45 p.m.) were accepted, the delay of 13 hours in intimation to the relative constitutes an infraction. The burden of proving compliance lies on the prosecution, which was not discharged.

Issues: (1) Whether compliance with Article 22(1) and Sections 47, 48 BNSS must be effected prior to the first production of the accused before the nearest Magistrate (for transit remand) or only before the jurisdictional Magistrate? (2) Whether a delay of 13 hours in communicating grounds of arrest to a relative amounts to an infraction of Article 22(1) when the grounds have already been furnished to the arrestee?

Ratio Decidendi: The safeguards under Article 22(1) and the corresponding provisions of BNSS are triggered at the time of first production before any Magistrate, including a non-jurisdictional Magistrate for transit remand. The grounds of arrest must be communicated to the arrestee’s relative or friend before such production. Failure to do so renders the arrest illegal and entitles the accused to bail irrespective of any later compliance. The “two-hour rule” in Mihir Rajesh Shah does not apply where the grounds have already been communicated to the arrestee; the requirement of intimation to relatives remains independent.

Result: Bail applications allowed. Applicants released on bail on conditions including bond of Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties, cooperation with investigation, weekly appearance before investigating officer, not committing similar offences, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving State of Kerala without court permission.