Failure to inform relatives of arrest grounds renders arrest illegal under Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

O R D E R

Dated this the 30^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.1 in Crime No.32/2024 of the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Kozhikode. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22 (c) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985.

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

31.10.2024, the accused were found in conscious possession of 220 grams of Methamphetamine near the institution named City Optic, Indira Gandhi Road, Kasaba Amsom Desom, Kozhikode Corporation in violation of Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act and thus committed the above-mentioned offences.

4. I have heard Smt. Reeha Khader.K, 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 31.10.2024 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. In this case, a perusal of the records show that the grounds of arrest have been properly communicated to the arrestee, but in the arrest intimation given to the near relatives, there is no reference to the quantity of the contraband seized from the applicant. 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 comunicate the grounds of arrest to the near relatives renders the arrest illegal. Inasmuch as the grounds of arrest were not properly 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