The failure to communicate grounds for arrest renders the arrest illegal under constitutional provisions.

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.1 in Crime No.1199/2024 of Kalady Police Station, Ernakulam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 8 (c), 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (for short, NDPS Act) and Sections 111 and 238(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNS ’).

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 28.10.2024, the accused were found in possession of 291.74 grams of MDMA in a car bearing registration No.KL-07/CH-5751 and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Nireesh Mathew, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.K.A.Noushad, 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 28.10.2024 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. On perusal of the case diary, it is noticed that separate grounds of arrest were duly communicated to the applicant. However, in the arrest intimation given to the relative of the applicant, there is no reference to any grounds for arrest. Though there is reference to the provision of law under which the applicant has been arrested, in the absence of specific grounds of arrest in the arrest intimation, it cannot be said that there was any effective communication of the grounds for arrest as contemplated by law. The Supreme Court in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228) has held that the grounds of arrest should not only be provided to the arrestee but also to his family members and relatives so that necessary arrangements are made to secure the release of the person arrested at the earliest possible opportunity so as to make the mandate of Art.22(1) meaningful and effective, failing which, such arrest would be rendered illegal. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Alvin Riby v. State of Kerala (2025 KER 67079) following Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra) held that failure to communicate the grounds of arrest to the near relatives renders the arrest illegal. 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.