Mandatory communication of arrest grounds under Article 22(1) and Section 47 of BNSS.

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 Crime No.28/2025 of Mananthavady Excise Range Office, Waynad District. The offence alleged is punishable under Section 22 (c) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act’).

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 19.3.2025 at about 7.50 am, the applicant and accused No.2 were found in possession and transportation of 6.987 grams of methamphetamine in a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-01-CY 6215 at the Tolpetty Excuse check post, Thirunelli Village, Mananthavady Taluk in contravention of the NDPS Act. Further, on 25.3.2025, during investigation, the applicant and the accused No.2 made confession and based on the confession statement, a total quantity of 285 grams of methamphetamine were found hidden in a secret compartment of the above car's trunk and thereby committed the offence.

4. I have heard Sri. P. Mohamed Sabah, 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 19.03.2025, and the grounds of arrest were not communicated in accordance with the 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 to inform 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)]. Recently in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356), the three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that grounds of arrest must be informed to the arrested person in every case without exception, and the mode of communication of such grounds must be in writing in the language he understands. It was further held that non-supply of grounds of arrest in writing to the arrestee before or immediately after arrest would not vitiate such arrest, provided said grounds are supplied in writing within a reasonable time and in any case two hours before the production of the arrestee before the Magistrate. However, it was clarified that the requirement to communicate the written grounds of arrest to the arrestee would only operate prospectively.

8. 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.

9. The case of the applicant is that the wr