SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 3666

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
MUHAMMED RAIZAL SUBAIR – Appellant
Versus
NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 13416 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.M.RAFEEK, SHRI.ANTONY PAUL
For the Respondents: SHRI.R.VINU RAJ, SHRI.K.K.SUBEESH

The constitutional requirement to inform an arrested person of grounds for arrest is mandatory and noncompliance can lead to the invalidation of the arrest.

Headnote:This decision examines the statutory requirements under Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and Article 22(1) of the Constitution regarding the communication of grounds of arrest. The appellant claimed a violation due to the non-communication of grounds for his arrest, asserting this invalidated the arrest. The court reiterated that informed grounds are constitutionally mandatory and assessed recent precedents emphasizing this point. Conclusively, the court found that proper communication of arrest grounds was adhered to, leading to the dismissal of the bail application.

Table of Content
1. court's determination on the constitutionality and requirements around grounds of arrest. (Para 4 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 13)
2. legal arguments regarding the arrest process and implications of noncompliance. (Para 5 , 11)
3. final determination of bail application status. (Para 6 , 7)

ORDER

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

2. The applicant is the accused No.1 in O.R.

No.08/2025 of Narcotic Control Bureau, Cochin. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22 (c), 22(A), 23(c), 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the NDPS Act).

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on

07.10.2025 at Kochi International Mail Center, the officers of the NCB, Cochin Zonal Unit seized 0.11 gms of thick multi-coloured design paper believed to be LSD, 0.80 gms of Cocaine and 1.21 gms of MDMA. During the course of investigation, the applicant was summoned and his voluntary statement was recorded. It established his involvement in the trafficking of seized narcotic substance.

4. I have heard Sri.P.M. Rafeek the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. R. Vinu Raj, the learned Special Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the requirement of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest is mandatory under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the BNSS and inasmuch as the applicant was not furnished with the grounds of arrest, his arrest was illegal and is liable to be released on bail. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that all legal formalities were complied with in accordance with Chapter V of the BNSS at the time of the arrest of the applicant. It is further submitted that the alleged incident occurred as part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant and hence he is not entitled to bail at this stage.

6. The applicant was arrested on 10.10.2025 and since then he is in judicial custody.

7. 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.

8. Chapter V of BNSS, 2023 deals with the arrest of persons. Sub-section (1) of Section 35 of BNSS lists cases when police may arrest a person without a warrant. Section 47 of BNSS clearly states that every police officer or other person arresting any person without a warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India provides that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. Thus, the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory statutory and constitutional requirement. Noncompliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution will be a violation of the fundamental right of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. It will also amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.

9. The question whether failure to communicate written grounds of arrest would render the arrest illegal, necessitating the release of the accused, is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court inPankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others [(2024) 7 SCC 576] , while dealing with Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, has held that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. It was further held that a copy of written grounds of arrest should be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. InPrabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top