Mandatory communication of arrest grounds under Article 22(1) must include sufficient detail to ensure legality; failure results in vitiation of arrest.

ORDER

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

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.275 of 2025 of Ernakulam North Police Station registered for the offence punishable under section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

3. According to the prosecution on 22.07.2025, the accused was found in possession of 54.10 gram of MDMA and thereby committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested on 22.07.2025, and he has been in custody since then.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 22.07.2025. 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 in Pankaj 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 [2025 SCC Online SC 269] , it has been held that the requirement of informing a person of grounds of 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 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.

9. On a perusal of the case diary, it is noticed that separate grounds for arrest have been communicated to the petitioner. However, except for mentioning that the arrest is for illegal possession of MDMA, there is no reference to the quantity of contraband seized from the petitioner. Since the quantity of contraband determines whether an offence under the NDPS Act is bailable or non bailable, the said requirement is mandatory to effectively communicate the grounds for arrest. However, in the arrest intimation, there is specific reference that the accused was found in possession of 54.10 grams of MDMA. As the grounds for arrest have not been properly communicated to the petitioner, I am satisfied that the arrest is vitiated.

10. The learned Public Prosecutor, however, submitted that the investigation is still continuing, notwithstanding the illegal arrest. In such circumstances, I am satisfied that the petitioner ought to be released forthwith.

11. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Sub Jail, Ernakulam, shall release the petitioner forthwith.

This bail application is disposed of as above.