The court emphasized compliance with arrest notification requirements under Article 22(1) and upheld the denial of bail based on possession of contraband.

ORDER

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

2. Petitioner is the 3^rd accused in Crime No.530 of 2025 of Tirur Police Station, Malappuram, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 22 (c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [for brevity, ‘NDPS Act’].

3. According to the prosecution, on 27.03.2025 at about 5.35 PM, the petitioner and other accused were found in possession of 141.58 grams of MDMA at the parking ground near Tirur Railway Station and thereby committed the offences alleged. The specific allegation against the petitioner herein is that 9.42 grams of MDMA was seized from his possession and also conspired with accused Nos.1 & 2 for possessing the contraband and thus committed the offences alleged. The petitioner was arrested on 27.03.2025 and he has been in custody since then.

4. Heard Adv.P.Mohamed Sabah, 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 27.03.2025. 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 not 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 there are records in the form of an arrest memo and inspection memo apart from a separate written grounds for arrest have been given to the petitioner. In the arrest memo, the provision of law under which the petitioner has been arrested is specially mentioned, while in the inspection memo, which is stated to have been served on the petitioner at the time of his arrest, there is specific reference to the provisions of law and also mentioning that the body search revealed that he was found in possession of 9.42 grams of MDMA. In the separate grounds for arrest, it is specifically mentioned that petitioner was found to be in possession of MDMA and that he had committed the offences under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

Therefore, as far as the communication of the grounds of arrest to the arrestee is concerned, I am satisfied that it has been effectively communicated. In the arrest intimation, though there is no reference to