Arun Kumar.P vs State Of Kerala

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J

This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya  Nagarik  Suraksha  Sanhita,  2023  (for  short,  BNSS), seeking regular bail.

The applicant is the accused in Crime No.27/2026 of Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode District. The offence alleged is punishable under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The prosecution case, in short, is that on 08.01.2026,  at  about  08:44  a.m.,  the  applicant  was  found  in possession  of  194.99  grams  of  MDMA  in  a road  near  Kovoor Cochin Bakery and thereby committed the offence.

I have heard Sri.P.Mohamed Sabah, the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt.V.Sreeja, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the requirement of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest is mandatory under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the BNSS, and since the applicant was not furnished with the grounds of arrest, his arrest was illegal and he is liable to be released on bail.  On  the  other  hand,  the  learned  Senior  Public  Prosecutor submitted that all legal formalities were complied with in accordance with Chapter V of the BNSS at the time of the arrest of the applicant. It is further submitted that the alleged incident occurred as part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant and hence he is not entitled to bail at this stage.

The applicant was arrested on 08.01.2026, and since then, he has been in judicial custody.

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.

Chapter  V of  BNSS,  2023,  deals  with  the  arrest  of persons. Sub-section (1) of Section 35 of BNSS lists cases where police may arrest a person without a warrant. Section 47 of BNSS clearly states that every police officer or other person arresting any person without a warrant shall forthwith communicate  to  him  full  particulars  of  the  offence  for  which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India provides that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as  soon as may  be,  of the  grounds for such arrest.  Thus,  the requirement  of  informing  the  person  arrested  of  the  grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory statutory and constitutional  requirement.  Noncompliance  with  Article  22(1) of the Constitution will be a violation of the fundamental right of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. It will also amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.

The question whether the failure to communicate the  written  grounds  of  arrest  would  render  the  arrest  illegal, necessitating the release of the accused, is no longer res integra.  In Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others [(2024) 7  SCC 576] and Prabir  Purkayastha v. State  (NCT of Delhi)  [(2024)  8 SCC  254],  the  Supreme  Court  has  held that the requirement of informing a person of the written grounds of arrest in writing is a mandatory requirement under Article  22(1)  of  the  Constitution  and  Section  47  of  the  BNSS and absence of the same would render the arrest illegal. Later in  Vihaan  Kumar  v.  State  of  Haryana  and  Others  (2025 SCC OnLine SC 269), it was reiterated that the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality, but a mandatory constitutional requirement. However, it was observed that there is no mandatory requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing. Recently,  in  Mihir  Rajesh  Shah  v.  State  of  Maharashtra and Another  (2025  SCC  OnLine  SC  2356),  the  three  Judge Bench of the  Supreme Court after referring to all the three decisions mentioned above held that the grounds of arrest must  be  informed  to  the  arrested  person  in  each  and  every case  without  exception,  and  the  mode  of  communication  of such grounds must be in writing in the language he understands. So far as the cases under the NDPS Act are concerned, a Single Bench of this Court in Yazin .S. v. State of Kerala (2025 KHC OnLine 2383), Rayees R.M. v. State of Kerala (2025 KHC 2086), and Vishnu N.P. v. State of Kerala (2025 KHC OnLine 1262) took the view that the specification of the quantity of the contraband seized is mandatory for the effective communication of the grounds of arrest.

I reviewed the case diary, which contains notices served on the applicant and his relative under Sections 47 and 48 of BNSS.  These  notices  show  that  specific  grounds  and  reasons for  arrest  were  communicated  to  both  the  applicant  and  his relative. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that, although  separate  grounds  for  arrest  were  provided  to  each, there  was  no  mention  of  the  quantity  of  contraband seized from  the  applicant.  It  is  true  that  the  notices  do  not  specify the quantity seized. However, it is explicitly stated that what was seized was a commercial quantity. The object of mentioning  the  quantity  is  to  enable  the  accused  to  identify whether  the  offence  is  bailable  or  non-bailable,  and  whether the  quantity  involved  is  small,  intermediate,  or  commercial. Therefore, if the grounds for arrest state that the quantity seized is an intermediate or commercial quantity, that suffices  to  comply  with  Sections  47  and  48  of  BNSS,  even  if the exact quantity is not specified. Thus, there has been proper communication of the grounds of arrest to the applicant  and  his  relative.  The  bail  application  is,  therefore, dismissed.