The absence of communication of arrest grounds to relatives renders the arrest illegal, necessitating bail release.

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.3 in Crime No.449/2025 of Edathala Police Station, Ernakulam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22 (c), 29 and 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (for short, the NDPS Act).

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

10.05.2025 at 04:15 p.m., the police seized 58.73 grams of MDMA and 27 grams of ganja from room No.1004 of Royal Enclave near Manali Mukku, Aluva East Village, which was occupied by accused Nos.1 and 2. On investigation, it is revealed that accused Nos.1 and 2 purchased the same from the applicant and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri.P. Mohamed Sabah, 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 applicant submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 19.06.2025 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 inKasireddy 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 inAlvin Riby v. State of Kerala (2025 KER 67079) followingKasireddy 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 this case, the applicant was produced on production warrant. Hence, the grounds of arrest need not be furnished to him. However, no grounds of arrest were communicated to the relative of the applicant.

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 jurisdictional Magistrate/Court.

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

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m. every Saturday until further orders. He shall al