The failure to communicate arrest grounds to relatives renders the arrest 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 applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.87/2025 of Palakkad Excise Range Office, Palakkad District. The offence alleged is punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act’).

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 04.08.2025 at

04.30 p.m. in front of the Excise Checkpost at Walayar, the applicant was found in possession of 1.180 kilograms of hashish oil while he was travelling in a bus by name ‘Surya Connect’ bearing registration No.KL-41-W-2044 in contravention of the NDPS Act and Rules and thereby committed the aforementioned offence.

4. I have heard Sri.P.Mohamed Sabah, the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt.Sreeja V., 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 04.08.2025 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 this case, the perusal of the records would show that the grounds of arrest were duly communicated to the arrestee. However, admittedly, the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the relative of the applicant in writing. According to the prosecution, the grounds of arrest were intimated to the mother of the applicant in her mobile phone No.7034902359. The learned counsel for the applicant on the last posting date submitted that the said phone number does not belong to the mother of the applicant. Hence, the investigating officer was directed to get a statement from the mother of the applicant and confirm her name as well as the phone number. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor was directed to get instructions as to in whose name the mobile phone No.7034902359 stands. Accordingly, a report has been submitted today. It would show that the said phone number stands in the name of one Smt.Lissy. She is the friend of the applicant’s mother. Her statement was also recorded. It is stated in the said statement that the arrest intimation was given to her in that number and it was also intimated through WhatsApp. However, there is nothing on record to show that she in turn informed the factum of arrest to the applicant or his mother. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no proper communication of the grounds of arrest to the relative of 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