Non-communication of grounds for arrest under Article 22(1) renders the arrest illegal, allowing for bail.

ORDER

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

2. Petitioners are accused 2 and 3 in Crime No.340/2025 of Kunnamangalam Police Station, Kozhikode; registered for the offences punishable under Sections 22 (c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, NDPS).

3. The prosecution case is that, on 24.04.2025, at about 01.00 p.m., petitioners were found in possession while transporting 59.7 grams of MDMA which has been, after analysis, found to be methamphetamine, being carried in a scooter bearing registration No. KL-57-U-1068 at Pullikkoth, Aarambram Poyil Thazham Road, and thereby the accused committed the offences alleged. Petitioners were arrested on 25.07.2025 and they have been in custody since then.

4. Heard Sri. P. Mohamed Sabah, the learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as Sri.M.C.Ashi, the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been in custody since 25.07.2025. 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 was a commercial quantity, the rigour under section 37 of NDPS Act will apply and hence petitioners ought not to be released on bail. It was further submitted that the investigation in the case has not yet been completed and that the petitioners were arrested only on 25.07.2025.

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. On a perusal of the records of investigation, it is noticed that the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the accused as contemplated by law. Though in the arrest intimation as well as in the arrest memo, there is reference that the accused had assisted the first accused for committing the offence, there is no mention about the quantity of contraband seized or the nature of contraband. In such circumstances, I am satisfied that the grounds for arrest have not been communicated as contemplated by law.

11. Since the grounds for arrest have not been communicated to the near relatives as contemplated by law, petitioners' arrest is illegal and he is entitled for bail.

12. Accordingly, 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 th