Failure to adequately communicate grounds for arrest vitiates the legality of detention.

ORDER

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

2. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime No.1014/2025 of Mannarkkad Police Station, Palakkad District, registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 8 (c), 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (for short 'the NDPS'

Act'), 3. According to the prosecution, on 12.09.2025 at about

04:00 a.m., the petitioners and accused No. 6 were found in possession of and transporting 80.05 grams of methamphetamine in a car bearing registration No. KL-53-R-2223 and in a scooter bearing registration No. KL-51-J-1855 at New Bus Stand Junction on Kanjirappuzha– Ambazhakkodu Road. The accused, no. 6 in the crime, ran away from the scene and the accused thereby committed the offences alleged. Petitioners 1 to 5 were arrested on 12.09.2025 and they have been in custody since then.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the petitioners or their relatives at the time of their arrest.

5. 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 was a commercial quantity, the rigour under section 37 of NDPS Act will apply and hence petitioners ought not to be released on bail.

6. Though prima facie there are materials on record to connect the petitioners with the crime, since the question of absence of communication of the grounds for their arrest have been raised, this Court is obliged to consider the said issue.

7. 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 the 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.

8. In a recent decision in Shahina vs. State of Kerala [2025 KHC OnLine 706] , this Court had 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. In the instant case, on a perusal of the records of investigation, it is seen that the grounds for arrest has been properly mentioned in the notice given to the arrestee. However, in the arrest intimation given to the near relative, only the provision of law has been mentioned, without reference to the quantity of contraband. The quantity of contraband is necessary to be mentioned since it enables the relatives of the accused to identify whether the accused is involved in a bailable or non-bailable offence. Though the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that reference to the provision of law is sufficient, which itself would convey to the relatives of the accused that he is involved in a non-bailable offence, I am unable to agree to the said proposition.

10. On an earlier occasion, this court had considered similar issues in Vishnu v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC OnLine 1262] , wherein it was specifically observed that the arrest intimation communicated to the near relative must mention not