Mandatory communication of arrest grounds under Article 22(1) must be satisfied; lack of communication can justify bail release.

ORDER

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

2. Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.801 of 2024 of Ollur Police Station, Thrissur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20 (c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, NDPS).

3. The prosecution case is that, on 26.08.2024 the accused were found in possession of 103.530 grams of MDMA, and thereby the accused committed the offences alleged. The petitioner was arrested on

26.08.2024 and he has been in custody since then.

4. Heard Sri.Sarath Babu Kottakkal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.Noushad K.A, the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 26.08.2024. It was submitted that the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the petitioner or his relatives at the time of his arrest.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that the grounds for arrest were communicated to the petitioner at the time of his arrest. It was also submitted that since the contraband seized from the petitioner was a commercial quantity, the rigour under section 37 of NDPS Act will apply and hence petitioner ought not to be released on bail.

7. Though prima facie there are materials on record to connect the petitioner with the crime, since petitioner has raised the question of absence of communication of the grounds for his arrest, this Court is obliged to consider the said issue.

8. 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 ] and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another [2025 SCC Online SC 269], 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 said information must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufÏcient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds must be communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands.

9. In a recent decision in Shahina vs. State of Kerala [2025 KHC OnLine

706] this Court has also considered the impact of the aforesaid principles in relation to offences alleged under the NDPS Act and held that the grounds for arrest must be communicated.

10. On a perusal of the case diary, it is noticed that the arrest memo as well as the arrest intimation do not contain any grounds for arrest as contemplated by law. Those records contain only a reference to the provisions of law under which the accused was arrested, which is not sufÏcient under law for an effective communication of the grounds for arrest. In such circumstances, I am satisfied that the grounds for arrest have not been effectively communicated as contemplated by law.

11. Petitioner has been in custody from 26.08.2024 onwards.

Having regard to the above circumstances, I am satisfied that the grounds for arrest have not been communicated to the petitioner as required by law.

12. Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

(b) Petitioner shall co-operate with the trial of the case.

(c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence.

(d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.

(e) Petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the jurisdictional Court.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any modification or deletion of the con