Mandatory communication of grounds of arrest under constitutional guarantees; failure to communicate grounds vitiates arrest and warrants release on bail.

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.709 of 2025 of Pudukkad Police Station, Thrissur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20 (b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [for brevity, ‘NDPS Act’].

3. According to the prosecution, on 23.05.2025 at about

5.15 a.m., the accused were found transporting 125 Kg. of ganja in a lorry bearing registration No.KL-42/X-3218 and thereby committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested on 23.05.2025 and he has been in custody since then.

4. Heard Sri.Vivek Venugopal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Prasanth M.P., the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 23.05.2025. 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] andVihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana [AIR 2025 SC 1388] , 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 v. 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 neither the arrest memo contains any grounds for arrest nor has the arrest intimation been given to the petitioner’s relatives. However, since the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is still ongoing, I am of the view that petitioner’s arrest is being vitiated and and he is bound to be released forthwith.

In such circumstances, the Superintendent of District Jail, Viyyur, is hereby directed to release the petitioner forthwith.

This application is disposed of as above.