Failure to communicate grounds of arrest to relatives renders the arrest illegal, granting eligibility for 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 applicants are the accused Nos.2 and

3 in Crime No.22/2025 of Excise Range Office, Koyilandy. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22 (c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (for short, ‘the NDPS Act’).

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

03.06.2025 at about 10:20 a.m., the applicants were found in possession and transportation of 52.242 grams of Methamphetamine in a Honda City car bearing registration No. KL-07-BN-3399 which was found lying in a landed property of one Latheef Haji in contravention of the NDPS Act & Rules.

4. I have heard Smt. Reeha Khader.K, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. M.C.Ashi, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have been in custody since

03.06.2025 and the grounds of arrest were not communicated in accordance with law at the time of their 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 applicants with the crime, since the applicants have raised a question of absence of communication of the grounds of their 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 arrestees. However, in the arrest intimation given to the relatives, the grounds of arrest and the quantity of the contraband seized from the accused have not been mentioned. 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 applicants, the arrest stands vitiated and they are entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions: -

(i) The applicants shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate/Court.

(ii) The applicants shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

(iii) The applicants shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m. every Saturday until further orders. They shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required.

(iv) The applicants shall not commit any offence of a like nature while on bail.

(v) The applicants shall not attempt to contact any of th