Failure to communicate arrest grounds renders detention illegal.

ORDER

This is an application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), 2023.

2. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.1699/2025 of Adoor Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 22 (c) and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

3. The prosecution case is that on 30/07/2025 at 11:00 a.m., accused No.1 was found in possession of 97.950 grams of MDMA kept for the purpose of sale. In the further investigation, It was revealed that the accused No.2 had assisted accused No.1 in procuring the contraband substance.

4. The petitioner was arrested on 30/07/2025 and he has been in judicial custody since then.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the officer who arrested the petitioner/accused had not complied with the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the BNSS in the sense that the grounds of arrest were not communicated.

7. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that there is substantial compliance of the requirement regarding the communication of the grounds and reasons of arrest.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the quantity of the contraband allegedly seized has not been mentioned in the arrest intimation. The learned counsel further submitted that the penal provision invoked is also not mentioned. Relying onRayees R.M. v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC 2086], the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since there was no reference to the quantity of the contraband seized and the penal provision invoked, the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS has not been complied with. InRayees R.M. /b> (Supra), this Court held thus-

“ 9. On a perusal of the case diary, it is noticed that separate grounds for arrest have been communicated to the petitioner. However, except for mentioning that the arrest is for illegal possession of MDMA, there is no reference to the quantity of contraband seized from the petitioner. Since the quantity of contraband determines B.A No.13530 of 2025 whether an offence under the NDPS Act is bailable or non bailable, the said requirement is mandatory to effectively communicate the grounds for arrest. However, in the arrest intimation, there is specific reference that the accused was found in possession of 54.10 grams of MDMA. As the grounds for arrest have not been properly communicated to the petitioner, I am satisfied that the arrest is vitiated.”

9. The fundamental object sought to be subserved by Article 22 (1) are the following:

(a) To apprise the arrested person of why he/she is being arrested.

(b) To enable the arrestee to frame his defence against possible detention and to seek appropriate legal aid.

10. The mode of communication of grounds of arrest is to be in such a manner that the effectiveness of the same deserves to be tested on the touchstone whether the mode of communication subserves the fundamental object mentioned above. Non-compliance of this constitutional requirement and the statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the detention of the arrestee or detainee being rendered illegal, as it would amount to violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee or detainee. Filing a chargesheet and order of cognizance will not validate the arrest which is per se unconstitutional. The burden is on the police to establish that the grounds of arrest were properly communicated to the arrestee. {Vide :Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India [(2024)