The requirement of informing a person of the grounds for arrest is mandatory; failure to do so renders the arrest illegal.

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.395/2025 of Panamaram Police Station, Wayanad District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 376 (2)(n) and 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , Section 9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 , Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Section 3(a) r/w 4(2), Sections 5(j)(ii) & (1) r/w 6(1), 16(3) r/w 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 .

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant No.1 had repeatedly committed rape/penetrative sexual assault on the defacto complainant, aged 14 years, with the knowledge and assistance of accused No.2, who is the mother, having actual control and charge over the survivor and duty bound to protect her, and accused No.3 between 01.06.2023 and 31.03.2024 from his flat at Karimbummal in Panamaram amsom and from the survivor's house, following which she became pregnant and gave birth to a baby boy on a day in the month of November 2024. Thus, the applicant committed the offences alleged.

4. I have heard Sri.Vishnuprasad Nair, 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 08.06.2025 and the grounds of arrest were not communicated in accordance with law at the time of his arrest. The learned 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 have been communicated to the arrestee, but they were not communicated to the near relatives. 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, 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 jurisdiction