The failure to communicate the specific grounds of arrest to the relatives of an accused person, even in cases involving production warrants, renders the arrest illegal and provides a valid ground for the grant of 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.4 in Crime No.239/2025 of Elamakkara Police Station, Ernakulam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the accused were found in possession of 51.51 grams of MDMA on 26.05.2025 in a car bearing Registration No.KL-11-Z-0909 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 31.07.2025 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. 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. In this case, the applicant was produced on production warrant. Therefore, grounds of arrest need not be communicated to the applicant. However, even in such cases the grounds of arrest must be communicated to the relative of the applicant. (See Ashique v. State of Kerala [2026 (2) KHC 582]). It is true that the arrest was before the decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356). Hence, the communication to the relative over phone is sufficient. In the remand report it is stated that the intimation regarding the arrest was given to the near relative. There is no mention that grounds for arrest, reason for arrest and the quantity of contraband seized were communicated to the relative. 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 jurisdictional Magistrate/Court.

(ii) The applicant shall fully co-operate wi