Mandatory requirement to communicate grounds for arrest effectively; procedural invalidation leads to bail eligibility.

ORDER

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

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.753 of 2025 of Mukkom Police Station, Kozhikode, registered alleging offences punishable under Section 22 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 .

3. According to the prosecution, on 24.07.2025 at 08.10 p.m, petitioner was found in possession while transporting 83.640 grams of MDMA in a scooter bearing Registration No.KL-57-M-2431, and thereby committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested on 24.07.2025, and he has been in custody since then.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been in custody since 24.07.2025. It was submitted that the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the petitioner or his relatives at the time of his arrest.

5. 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.

6. 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.

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 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 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.

9. In the instant case, on a perusal of the arrest memo, it is noticed that the grounds for arrest have been communicated, to the arrestee as there is specific reference to 83.640 grams of MDMA as found in possession of the accused. However, no written grounds of intimation were given to any relative of the accused. In such circumstances, I am satisfied that the grounds for arrest have not been communicated as contemplated by law.

10. Petitioner has been in custody from 24.07.2025 onwards.

The learned Public Prosecutor however, submitted that the investigation has not yet been completed and the petitioner is lodged at the Sub Jail, Kozhikode. In view of the above, since the arrest is vitiated, petitioner is entitled to be released forthwith. Ordered accordingly.

11. The Superintendent of Special Sub jail, Kozhikode, where the petitioner is lodged is directed to release the petitioner forthwith.

Bail application is disposed of as above.