Grounds for arrest must be effectively communicated to the accused to comply with legal requirements, and failure to do so can result in bail being granted.

ORDER

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

2. Petitioner is the third accused in Crime No.958 of 2023 of Chevayur Police Station, Kozhikode; registered for the offences punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (for short, NDPS).

3. The prosecution case is that, on 21.10.2023, the accused were found in possession of 66.650 gms of Methaphetamine, and thereby committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested on 04.05.2024 and he has been in custody since then.

4. Heard Adv.Padma Lakshmi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Smt. Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 04.05.2024. It was also 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 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 records, it is noticed that in the arrest memo the grounds for arrest have not been communicated to the petitioner as contemplated by law. There is no separate arrest intimation given to any near relatives as well, though there is a reference in the arrest memo about intimation given to the mother of the accused. However, that reference is not sufÏcient compliance of the requirements of law. 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 04.05.2024 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.

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)