Failure to communicate the grounds of arrest to an arrestee's relatives, even in cases of formal arrest via production warrant, renders the arrest procedurally illegal and entitles the accused to 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.2 in Crime No.838/2025 of Aroor Police Station, Ernakulam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 8(c) and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the NDPS Act).

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that accused Nos.1 and 2 with the assistance of accused No.3 procured 398 grams of MDMA for sale and accordingly on 12.11.2025 at about 5.20 a.m., the contraband was seen kept at their rented residence in a shoulder bag kept in the wooden almirah and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Francis Assisi, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. M.C.Ashi, the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 22.01.2026 and the grounds of arrest were not communicated in accordance with law at the time of her 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 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 this case, the applicant, who was in judicial custody in connection with another case, was produced on a production warrant pursuant to an application filed by the investigating officer to record his arrest. Accordingly, he was produced and his arrest was recorded. It is settled that when formal arrest of an accused is recorded pursuant to an order/production warrant issued under Section 302 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNSS), there is no requirement to inform him the grounds of arrest separately. However, in such case, the communication of the grounds for arrest to the relative of the accused is mandatory (see Ashique v. State of Kerala [2026 KHC OnLine 213]