The court establishes that failure to communicate grounds of arrest to relatives breaches constitutional rights, warranting bail under the PML Act.

K.BABU, J.

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

B.A No.12435 of 2025 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 25^th day of November, 2025 O R D E R This is an application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

2. The petitioner is accused No.5 in Crime No.ECIR/KCZO/06/2024 of the Enforcement Directorate, Kochi. The offences alleged against the petitioner and the other accused are punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering (PML) Act, 2002.

3. The prosecution case is as follows:

Advertisements of various illegal Chinese loan applications were circulated in social media platforms to attract the general public as customers. After these applications were installed in the mobile phones of the customers, crucial data from their mobile phones including contacts, photographs, files etc., were retrieved, which were used to extort money through various methods. The money was later siphoned off from various accounts of the general public.

4. The petitioner was arrested on 20.02.2025 and he has been in judicial custody since then.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Directorate of Enforcement.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested without communicating to him the grounds of his arrest. The learned counsel further submitted that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to his relatives also. 7. Sri. Jaishankar v. Nair, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, opposed the bail application and submitted that the grounds for arrest were communicated to the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the rigour under Section 45 of the PML Act will apply and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the law mandating the requirement of communication of the grounds of arrest was declared by way of judicial precedent after the arrest of the petitioner.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the arrest and remand of the petitioner are in gross violation of the constitutional protection contained in ArticleS.21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the BNSS.

9. 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). The learned counsel, relying on Annexure A5 order passed by this Court in Bail Application No.11122/2025, submitted that the petitioner therein was granted bail on the ground that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the relatives of the petitioner.

10. The learned Standing Counsel produced the grounds of arrest stated to have been served on the petitioner on 20.02.2025. The learned Standing Counsel, relying on State of Karnataka v. Sri.Darshan (2025 ICO 1876), submitted that insofar as the communication of the grounds of arrest is concerned, substantial compliance alone is the law. In Vihaan Kumar, the Supreme Court held that failure to comply with the requirement of informing the grounds of arrest as soon as may be after the arrest, render the arrest as illegal. In Pankaj Bansal, while dealing with an arrestee under the PML Act, the Apex Court held that no arrested person shall be detained without being informed of the grounds of arrest at the earliest opportunity. In Kasireddy Upender Reddy, the Apex Court held that the information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a man