The court emphasized the need to communicate arrest grounds to both the accused and their relatives promptly under Article 22(1).

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 O.R.No.3 of 2024 of the Narcotics Control Bureau, Kochi, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 22 (c), 23(c), 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (for short, ‘the NDPS Act’).

3. According to the prosecution, the petitioner allegedly ordered a parcel containing 15 blots of LSD (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide) weighing 1.26 grams from a foreign country using a TOR browser and paid for the same using cryptocurrency. The said parcel was intercepted by the NCB at the Foreign Post Office, Ernakulam on 14.02.2024 and was replaced with a dummy parcel, which was thereafter delivered through controlled delivery to the petitioner on 17.02.2024. Upon receipt of the same, the petitioner was arrested on the spot by the officials of the NCB on

17.02.2024 and he has been in custody since then.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 17.02.2024. It was submitted that the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the petitioner or his relatives at the time of his arrest.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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 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 sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds must be communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands.

8. 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.

9. By an interim order 13.08.2025, this Court had after verifying the records of the case found prima facie that the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the relatives of the petitioner immediately after his arrest, interim bail was granted releasing the petitioner on conditions. The matter was posted again since there was an inconsistency detected from the records.

10. The Investigating Officer has filed an affidavit pursuant to the direction of this Court on 19.08.2025. On a perusal of the said affidavit, I am satisfied with the contends thereof and also that sufficient explanation has been given for the inconsistency noted.

11. As noticed in the interim order dated 13.08.2025, the grounds for arrest though communicated to the arrestee, intimation was not given to the relatives immediately. There was a delay of three days in sending the intimation of arrest to the nearest relatives. There is also no material to show when the intimation was served on the relatives of the peti