The arrest was declared illegal due to non-compliance with constitutional and statutory provisions regarding informing the accused of grounds for arrest.

ORDER This is an application seeking regular bail filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023.

2. The petitioner is the 1^st accused in Crime No.1005/2023 of Kalamassery Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 22 (c), 27A and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985.

3. The prosecution allegation is that on

21.05.2023, accused nos. 1 and 2 were found possessing and transporting 284 Grams of MDMA for the purpose of sale in a lorry bearing Reg.No.KL 04 AR 1181, in violation of provisions of the NDPS Act.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the allegations leveled against him. According to the petitioner, no contraband was actually recovered from his possession and he was implicated in this case without any bonafides. The learned counsel further submitted that the requirement of the Articles 22 (1) of the constitution, that the grounds of arrest must be communicated to the arrestee has not been complied with in this case and on the said grounds, the petitioner is liable to be released forth with.

5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application by highlighting the serious nature of the offence alleged in this case. Moreover, the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the petitioner is a history sheeter involved in a series of cases. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, as commercial quantity of contraband is seized in this case, the rigour contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for grant of bail is squarely applicable and there is absolutely no materials to satisfy the twin conditions mentioned under of the NDPS Act and hence petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.

6. The accusation that the petitioner was found in possession of commercial quantity of MDMA for the purpose of sale in violation of provisions of the NDPS Act cannot be viewed lightly. From the records, it is gatherable that, there is specific accusation that, it was from the possession of the 1^st accused, that the contraband was recovered, although the 2^nd accused was also a party to the conspiracy hatched in this case in pursuance of which the offence was committed.

7. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, since, commercial quantity of contraband is seized the rigour contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for grant of bail is applicable in this case. In terms of the said provision, the Court can grant bail only if after hearing the Public Prosecutor, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the said offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Undisputably, the twin conditions mentioned under of the NDPS Act has to be read conjointly and not distinctively. Only if, both these two conditions are satisfied, the Court can grant bail. However, in the case at hand, there is absolutely no materials to satisfy the Court about the said conditions. Therefore, in view of the rigour contained under of the NDPS Act, the petitioner is not entitled to get bail. However, it is to be noted that from the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is gatherable that, he is seeking bail mainly relying on the non compliance of procedures of arrest. According to the counsel, the requirement under Article 22(1) of the Indian constitution, that the grounds of arrest must be communicated to the arrestee has not been complied with in this case.

8. Before delving into the question of alleged noncompliance with the procedures of arrest, it must be borne in mind that the right of personal libert