Failure to communicate grounds of arrest renders the arrest illegal, necessitating 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.9 in Crime No.05/2021 of Kattakkada Excise Range Office, Thiruvananthapuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 20 (b)(ii)(C), 25, 27A, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985.

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

30.09.2021, the Excise Circle Inspector, Neyyattinkara, conducted a search at the residence of the accused No.1 and seized 187 kg of Ganja. It is further alleged that, during the subsequent investigation, a conspiracy involving the other accused was revealed, and the Investigating Officer concluded that the accused persons had conspired together to transport the contraband substance, ganja, from Andhra Pradesh to Kerala for the purpose of sale. It is also alleged that subsequently, 59 kg of ganja was recovered from a quarry near Manali Junction. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the final report arraying a total of 12 accused. At the time of filing the final report, accused Nos. 9 and 10 had not been arrested and were shown as absconding. Thus, the applicant committed the above offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Renjith B. Marar, 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 06.07.2024 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 this case, the formal arrest of the applicant was recorded, and hence there is no necessity to communicate the grounds of arrest. Admittedly, the grounds of arrest have not been communicated 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 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