Salman P. Salim vs State Of Kerala

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.

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

Petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.422/2025 of Kodakara Police Station, Thrissur; registered for the offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 27 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, NDPS).

The prosecution case is that, on 03.05.2025 accused Nos.1 & 2 were found in possession of 184.420 grams of MDMA. During interrogation, it was revealed that they had brought the contraband from Bangalore at the request and with the financial support of the petitioner, and thereby the accused committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested on 11.05.2025 and he has been in custody since then.

Heard Sri.M.P.Madhavankutty, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 11.05.2025. It was submitted that the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the petitioner or his relatives at the time of his arrest.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that the grounds for arrest were communicated to the petitioner at the time of his arrest. It was also submitted that since the contraband seized from the petitioner was a commercial quantity, the rigour under section 37 of NDPS Act will apply and hence petitioner ought not to be released on bail. It was further submitted that the investigation in the case has not yet been completed and that the petitioner was arrested only on 11.05.2025.

Though prima facie there are materials on record to connect the petitioner with the crime, since petitioner has raised the question of absence of communication of the grounds for his arrest, this Court is obliged to consider the said issue.

In the decisions in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others, [(2024) 7 SCC 576], Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC 254] and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another [2025 SCC Online SC 269], it has been held that the requirement of informing a person of grounds for arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) and also that the said information must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds must be communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands.

In a recent decision in Shahina vs. State of Kerala [2025 KHC OnLine 706] this Court has also considered the impact of the aforesaid principles in relation to offences alleged under the NDPS Act and held that the grounds for arrest must be communicated.

On a perusal of the case diary, it is noticed that, the specific grounds for arrest of the petitioner has been given to him on 11.05.2025. However, in the arrest memo except for referring to the provisions of law, there is no mention of any grounds for arrest as having been communicated to the petitioner. In such circumstances, I am satisfied that the grounds for arrest have not been communicated as mandated by law.

Since the investigation has not yet been completed, it is the petitioner has to be released forthwith. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Special Sub Jail, Irinjalkuda; is hereby directed to release the petitioner forthwith.

This application is disposed of as above.