The requirement to communicate arrest grounds is essential for upholding due process as mandated by Article 22(1).

ORDER

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

2. Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.556 of 2024 of Naruvamoodu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20 (b)(ii)(C), 29 and 31 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 [for brevity, ‘NDPS Act’].

3. According to the prosecution, on 04.07.2024 at about 6.15 p.m., the accused were found in possession of 25.92 Kg. of ganja and thereby committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested on

04.07.2024 and he has been in custody since then.

4. Heard Sri.Latheesh Sebastian, the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Smt.Maya M.N., the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 04.07.2024. It was submitted that the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the petitioner or his relatives at the time of his arrest.

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

7. Though prima facie there are materials on record to connect the petitioner with the crime, since petitioner has raised the question of absence of communication of the grounds for his 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] andVihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana [AIR 2025 SC 1388] , 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 v. 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. On a perusal of the case diary, it is noticed that the grounds for arrest have not been properly communicated to the petitioner, except for referring to the provisions of law under which he was arrested. There is no mention of the quantity or the nature of contraband. In the arrest intimation also there is only a reference to the provisions of law. Hence, I am satisfied that the grounds for arrest have not been communicated. In view of the failure to provide intimation of arrest or the grounds for arrest to the relatives of the petitioner, I am satisfied that petitioner has not been communicated with the grounds for arrest. In such circumstances, petitioner’s arrest is vitiated. 11. Petitioner has been in custody from 04.07.2024 onwards.

Since the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the petitioner soon after the arrest, petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, this application is allowed on the following conditions:-

(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

(b) Petitioner shall co-operate with the trial of the case.

(c) Petitioner shall no