Failure to communicate grounds of arrest to relatives renders the arrest illegal, necessitating bail.

O R D E R

Dated this the 27^th day of January, 2026 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.2 in Crime No.666/2025 of Thadiyittaparamba Police Station, Ernakulam District. The offence alleged is punishable under Sections 20 (b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985.

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

07.09.2025 at 07:05 am, the accused Nos.1 to 3 with the intention of making profit smuggled 91.00 kgs of Dry Ganja in plastic cover inside the car bearing No.WB-57-K-6776 travelled from Pookkattupady to Chembaraki and thus committed the above said offences.

4. I have heard Smt. S.Suraja, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. M.C.Ashi, 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

07.09.2025 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, the perusal of the records show that the grounds of arrest have been communicated to the arrestee, but they were not communicated to the near relatives. 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 arrest intimation to the relative, the quantity and nature of the contraband seized from the applicant were not mentioned.

Since the arrest is vitiated for non-compliance of Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 48 of BNSS , the Jail Superintendent concerned is directed to release the applicant forthwith. The bail application is disposed of as above.

Sd/-