The court reaffirmed that under the NDPS Act, possession of commercial quantities of narcotics warrants strict scrutiny, and bail is not granted based solely on prolonged detention without evidence of innocence.

ORDER

This is an application seeking regular bail filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

2. Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.19 of 2024 on the files of Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Kozhikode registered alleging offences punishable under sections 22(c), 27A and section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act').

3. According to the prosecution, on 04.07.2024, the accused was found in possession of 981.0999 grams of MDMA at the Kozhikode Railway Station and thereby the accused committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested on 04.07.2024 itself and he has been in custody since then.

4. Sri. P.P. Harris, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire prosecution allegations are false and that the petitioner is innocent. It was also submitted that since he has been in custody from the date of arrest, the long period of detention already undergone by him is itself sufficient to direct his release on bail. It was further submitted that, in any event, the grounds of arrest has not been communicated to him, as required by law and therefore petitioner's arrest is rendered illegal and hence he ought to be released forthwith in view of the decisions inVihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 269) as well as inPrabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC 254.

5. Sri. K.A. Noushad, the learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that petitioner was caught with the possession of the contraband and therefore the allegations are legally and factually justified. It was further submitted that in view of the rigour under section 37 of the NDPS Act, the long period of detention has no bearing unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner is not guilty. The learned Prosecutor also pointed out that the grounds of arrest have been properly communicated to him, which is evident from the contemporaneous records as well as the arrest memo issued to him in which the grounds of arrest have been specifically mentioned.

6. In the decisions in Vihaan Kumar (supra) and Prabeen Purkaista (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that the grounds of arrest must be communicated to the accused as soon as may be, after arrest. The mode in which the grounds of arrest must be communicated have not been specified. If it is communicated and if the said communication can be identified from the contemporaneous records, even then, the same would satisfy the requirement of communication.

7. In the instant case, the arrest memo has been produced as Annexure A2. In the arrest memo, which contains the signature and thumb impression of the person arrested, it is specifically referred as follows:

"മേൽ മേറുകാരനായ പ്രതി മേൽവില 981.0999 ഗ്രാം MDMA കൈവശം വെച്ചതും കൈകാര്യം ചെയ്തതും ആയതായി EE & ANSS സർവിൽ ഇൻസ്‌പെക്ടർ ഇ. ആർ. ഗിരീഷ് കൂറയും പ്രസ്താവിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നു."

8. A reading of the above endorsement in the arrest memo indicates that the petitioner has been informed at the time of his arrest that the case is registered against him for possessing a contraband called MDMA to the extent of 981.0999 grams. Under the NDPS Act, possession of a contraband to the extent of commercial quantity is a non-bailable offence. The reason for the arrest is reasonably discernible from the arrest memo itself. Considering the nature of offence committed, i.e. possession of a commercial quantity of a narcotic drug, the ground of arrest has been specifically narrated in the arrest memo. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the grounds of arrest have been communicated effectively to the petitioner in the instant case.

9. As far