Mandatory communication of arrest grounds under Article 22(1) is essential; failure to inform can justify grant of bail with conditions when arrest information is not effectively conveyed.

ORDER

These bail applications are filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).

2. Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.9 of 2024 of the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad Office, Malappuram registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20 (b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 , which is now pending as S.C.No. 1034 of 2024 on the files of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act and NDPS Act Cases, Manjeri.

3. According to the prosecution, on 20/02/2024 at 9:45 pm, the accused were found in possession of 55.65 kg of ganja and thereby the accused committed the offences alleged. Petitioners were arrested on

20.02.2024 and they have been in custody since then.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been in custody since 20.02.2024. It was submitted that the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the petitioners or their relatives at the time of their arrest.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that the grounds for arrest were communicated to the petitioners at the time of their arrest. It was also submitted that since the contraband seized from the petitioners were a commercial quantity, the rigour under section 37 of NDPS Act will apply and hence petitioners ought not to be released on bail.

7. Though prima facie there are materials on record to connect the petitioners with the crime, since petitioners have raised the question of absence of communication of the grounds for their 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 sufficient 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. Petitioners are husband and wife who are arrayed as accused 1 and 2 in the same crime. In the instant case, on a perusal of the case diary, it is noticed that as far as the first accused is concerned, though the arrest memo contains the specific grounds for arrest of the first accused, the arrest intimation does not contain the quantum of contraband seized from the first accused. Similarly, as far as the 2^nd accused, who is the petitioner in B.A.No.9225 of 2025 is concerned, the arrest memo contains specific grounds for arrest while the arrest intimation does not refer to the specific quantity of contraband seized. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the 2^nd accused that she is not well versed in Malayalam language, the said question is not considered at this juncture since I have already found that the arrest intimation has not been effectively communicated to her nearest relatives.

11. Petitioners have been in custody from 20.02.2024 onwards.

Having regard to the above circumstances, I am satisfied that the grounds for arrest have not been communicated to the relatives of the petitioners as