The necessity to inform relatives of grounds for arrest is mandatory, failing which the arrest is deemed illegal, warranting 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 applicants are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.630/2025 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station, Ernakulam 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 19.12.2025, while the applicants were staying in room No.403 of the Olessia Hotel in Kaloor, 13.89 grams of MDMA were found in a car bearing registration No.KL-55D-9595 belonging to the wife of the applicant No.1, following a police tip-off, and thus the applicants committed the aforementioned offences.

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

5. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have been in custody since 19.01.2026 and the grounds of arrest were not communicated in accordance with law at the time of their 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 applicants with the crime, since the applicants have raised a question of absence of communication of the grounds of their 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 shows that the grounds of arrest have been properly communicated to the arrestees, but they were not communicated to the near relatives in writing. Annexure 4 would show that intimation was given over phone only. The arrest in this case was made after the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah (Supra). 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 applicants in writing, the arrest stands vitiated and they are entitled to be released on bail.

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

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

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

(iii) The applicants shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m. every Saturday until further orders. They shall also appear