An arrest is illegal if the grounds are not promptly communicated to the accused as mandated by law.

K.BABU, J.

--------------------------------------

B.A No.13679 of 2025 ---------------------------------------

Dated this the 27^th day of November, 2025 O R D E R This is an application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023.

2. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 3 in Crime No.1621/2025 of Fort Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 22 (C) & 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985.

3. The prosecution case, as narrated in Annexure 2 order, reads thus:

“On 16.08.2025 at about 4.50 AM the 1^st accused was found in possession and transporting 0.45gms of MDMA, the 2^nd accused was found in possession and transporting 51.03gms of MDMA and the 3^rd accused was found in possession and transporting 0.90gms of MDMA in a Car bearing Reg. No.KL-01-DA-0933 near Jiljab shop in Chala Ibrahim Line, Manacaud Village, for the purpose of sale in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act.”[SIC]

4. The petitioners were arrested on 16.08.2025 and they have been in judicial custody since then.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners challenges the arrest for the reason that the grounds and reasons for the arrest were not communicated to the accused/petitioners.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea of the petitioners and submitted substantial compliance of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Sections 41 and 48 of the BNSS is the law. 8. The learned counsel relied on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India [ (2024) 7 SCC 576 )], Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025) 5 SCC 799 = (2025 KHC 6116), Ahmed Mansoor v. State (2025 KHC OnLine 7583), Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228) = (2025 KHC OnLine 6542), and Shahina v. State of Kerala ( 2025 (5) KHC 203 ) and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2025 KHC OnLine 6915) in support of his contentions.

9. The learned Public Prosecutor, relying on State of Karnataka v. Sri.Darshan (2025 ICO 1876), contends that substantial compliance of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Sections 42 and 48 of the BNSS is the mandate of the law. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that relevant information was served to the accused immediately after the arrest.

10. The grounds of arrest must be communicated to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to him effectively in a language which he understands. No arrested person shall be detained without being informed of the grounds of arrest at the earliest opportunity. Failure to comply with the requirement of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest as soon as may be after the arrest, renders the arrest as illegal. [Vide: Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India , Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana , Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another ]

11. I have gone through the Case Diary. The arrest memo and arrest intimation contain only a statement that MDMA was recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

12. I am of the considered view that the required information as mandated under Article 22(1) and Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS have not been served to the petitioners. The resultant conclusion is that the arrest is non est and hence the arrestees are entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, the Bail Application is allowed as follows:

(a) The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of