Violation of constitutional rights during arrest and remand led to the invalidation of judicial custody.

J U D G M E N T Jobin Sebastian J.

This is a writ petition instituted seeking a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondent to produce the mother of the petitioner who is under judicial custody in connection with O.R. No.1/2025 of NCB, Cochin zone, a case registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) r/w 8(c) and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

2. The relevant facts, as borne out from the pleadings of the parties and the files, are the following:

The petitioner’s mother, namely Shweta Narendra Shukla, is arrayed as the accused in O.R. No.1/2025 of NCB, Cochin zone. The allegation in the said case is that on 25.01.2025, at 9.30 a.m., the accused was found possessing 4.156 kg of charass for the purpose of sale, in room No.302 of a hotel named “Sand Residency” located at Kaloor, Ernakulam, in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985. After the detection of the case, the accused was arrested and produced before the Magistrate, who in turn had remanded her to judicial custody. According to the writ petitioner, the learned Magistrate remanded the accused in a casual and mechanical manner without verifying whether the constitutional safeguards and other provisions governing the procedures of arrest were duly complied with.

3. According to the writ petitioner, the requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, that the grounds of arrest must be communicated to the arrestee, has not been complied with in this case. Furthermore, the writ petitioner contends that the arrestee was not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of her arrest, thereby constituting a gross violation of the constitutional mandate contained under Article 22(2) of the Indian Constitution. Hence, it is submitted that both the arrest and the consequent remand are illegal, and the accused is entitled to be set at liberty forthwith.

4. Before delving into the question of alleged non-

compliance with the procedures of arrest, it must be borne in mind that the right of personal liberty is a basic human right recognised and guaranteed as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The detention of any person without legal sanction is an infringement of this fundamental right. Consequently, the arrest of a person can be effected only in strict accordance with the procedure established by law.

5. The right of the arrestee to be informed of his grounds of arrest is envisaged under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. It provides:

“No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consent and to defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.”

Likewise, Section 47(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) also mandates that every Police Officer arresting a person without a warrant must forthwith communicate to him the full particulars of the offence or other grounds of such arrest. Through a catena of decisions, it has been clarified that communicating the grounds of arrest serves multiple specific purposes. The Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and others [ (2024) 7 SCC 576 ] held that the accused has a constitutional and statutory right to be informed of the grounds for arrest in writing. The court further explained that this constitutional mandate is intended not only to apprise the arrested person of why he/she is being arrested but also to enable such person to seek legal counsel and thereafter to present a case effectively before a court while seeking bail.

6. Later, the Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi [200