The failure to communicate arrest grounds to relatives renders the arrest illegal, granting the accused entitlement to bail.

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.4 in Crime No.52/2026 of Karipur Police Station, Malappuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Section 22 (c) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (‘the NDPS Act’ for short).

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 22.01.2026 at about 06.50 a.m., acting on alleged confidential information, the police intercepted accused Nos.1 to 3 and recovered 1.480 grams of MDMA from the possession of the accused No.1, and that upon questioning, he disclosed that additional MDMA procured from another accused had been kept for sale as per the instruction of the applicant, pursuant to which the police recovered 39.110 grams of MDMA from the sunshade of a house situated in the same compound as the applicant’s residence, and it is on the basis of such alleged disclosure and recovery that the applicant has been implicated for the offences under Sections 22 (c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

4. I have heard Sri. Sidharth O., 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 22.01.2026 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 were duly communicated to the arrestee. However, the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the relatives in writing. It was communicated over phone only. Since the arrest is after the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), the communication in writing is necessary. 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 in writing, the arrest stands vitiated and he is entitled to be released on bail.

Hence, the Jail Superintendent, Special Sub Jail, Kozhikode is directed to release the applicant forthwith.

The bail application stands allowed.