The failure to communicate the grounds of arrest violates Article 22(1), rendering the arrest illegal and justifying bail.

O R D E R

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

2. The applicant is accused No.2 in Crime No.958/2023 of Chevayur Police Station, Kozhikode District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22 (c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, NDPS Act). 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 21.10.2023 at about 5:40 p.m., based on reliable information received, the police conducted a search of the Ottakkandathil House belonging to accused No.1 at Kannadikkal, where they found 66.650 grams of methamphetamine in the almirah of the bedroom. Accused Nos.1 and 3 purchased the contraband from Bangalore. The specific allegation against the applicant herein is that he is the agent of a lobby engaged in selling narcotic drugs on a large scale. The accused conspired together and possessed commercial quantities of methamphetamine in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act and thus committed the aforementioned offences.

4. I have heard Sri.P.Mohamed Sabah, the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 28.03.2024 and the grounds of arrest were not communicated in accordance with law at the time of his arrest. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the bail application and submitted that the grounds of arrest were duly communicated.

6. Though prima facie there are materials on record to connect the applicant with the crime, since the applicant has raised a question of absence of communication of the grounds of his arrest, let me consider the same.

7. It is now well settled that the requirement of informing a person of the grounds for arrest is a mandatory requirement of Art.22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of BNSS and absence of the same would render the arrest illegal (See. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others [(2024) 7 SCC 576] , Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC 254] , Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others (2025 SCC OnLine SC 269] and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356).

8. In the instant case, on a perusal of the case diary, it is noticed that the applicant was arrested pursuant to a production warrant and after the court had issued an order for formal arrest. Therefore, the grounds for arrest cannot be said to have been communicated to the applicant. However, the case diary does not indicate any intimation of arrest having been given to any near relative of the applicant. In the decision in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v.State of Andhra Pradesh and Others [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228], it has been observed that the mandate of Article 22 would be satisfied only if the grounds for arrest are communicated to the near relative of the arrestee. Inasmuch as the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the relatives of the applicant, the arrest stands vitiated and he is entitled to be released on bail.

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

(i) The applicant shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate/Court.

(ii) The applicant shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m. every Saturday until further orders. He shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required.

(iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence o