The mandatory requirement of informing an arrested person of grounds for arrest is upheld, dismissing the bail application.

ORDER

This bail application is filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).

2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.12 of 2024 of the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Thrissur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 29, 60(3) and 27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [for brevity, ‘NDPS Act’].

3. According to the prosecution, on 10.02.2024 at about 2 a.m., the accused were found in possession of 100 grams of Methamphetamine and thereby committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested on 10.02.2024 and they have been in custody since then.

4. Heard Adv.Nireesh Mathew, the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the ground for arrest have not been intimated to the petitioners and hence the arrest itself be vitiated.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds for arrest were specifically intimated to the petitioners along with the arrest memos and the arrest intimations were also given to the relatives of the petitioners.

8. Reliance was placed on in the decisions inPankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others , [ (2024) 7 SCC 576 ] Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC 254] andVihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana [AIR 2025 SC 1388], wherein it has been held that the requirement of informing a person of grounds for arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) and also that the information of the grounds for arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufÏcient knowledge of the basic facts confuting the grounds imparted and communicate to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands.

9. In a recent decision in Shahina v. State of Kerala [ 2025 KHC Online 706 ], this Court has already held that unlike in other offences under the Indian Penal Code or other statutes, when it comes to offences under the NDPS Act, the very possession itself is a ground for arrest.

10. I have considered the rival contentions.

11. The copy of the arrest memo and the intimation of arrest, both dated 10.02.2024, were handed over across the Bar by the leaned Public Prosecutor. On a perusal of the arrest memo, it is stated that from the northern side of Pazhayannur-Alathur road, beside a particular post, the accused named therein were found to be in possession of 100 grams of Methamphetamine. Though the aforesaid ground is mentioned as part of the brief facts of the case, the same is recorded in the arrest memo and contains the signatures and thumb impressions of the persons arrested. Three arrest memos were perused. All the three arrest memos contain the fingerprint and signature of the arrestee. Similarly, the arrest intimations were also given to the persons mentioned therein. The date mentioned in both documents tallies with the date of arrest of the petitioners.

12. Having regard to the above circumstances, I am satisfied that the records available with the Investigating OfÏcer indicates that the grounds for arrest have been communicated to the petitioners.

13. There is nothing vague about the mode of communication carried out in the instant case. Since the Court is satisfied that the grounds for arrest have been communicated, I am of the view that the contentions raised by the petitioners are without any basis and hence they are rejected.