Grounds Of Arrest Must Be Communicated, But Need Not Specify Contraband Quantity For Accused From Whom No Seizure Is Made: Kerala High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath allowed a bail application filed by an accused in an NDPS case, holding that the arresting agency must mandatorily communicate the grounds of arrest in compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards. The Court clarified that, although the reasons for arrest must be conveyed to every arrestee, stating the exact quantity of contraband seized becomes necessary only for those accused from whose possession the narcotic substance was actually recovered. The bail plea arose from allegations of offences under the NDPS Act relating to the dealing and facilitation of prohibited substances. While granting relief, the Court applied this distinction to assess the applicant’s position in the alleged transaction and seizure.
The prosecution alleged that on 21 January 2025 at 12.50 p.m., accused Nos.1 and 2 were found in possession of 221.89 grams of MDMA inside an almirah in a hotel room for sale. The applicant was arrested on 20 May 2025 and remained in judicial custody.
Also Read: Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Invoked To Interdict An Arbitral Award: Supreme Court
The applicant contended that he was not furnished with the grounds of arrest as mandated under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the BNSS, rendering his arrest illegal and entitling him to bail. The prosecution submitted that all legal formalities were complied with and that the applicant had intentionally participated in the crime. The Court examined the case diary and the notice issued under Sections 47 and 35(1)(b)(ii) of the BNSS.
The Court observed, “Thus, the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory statutory and constitutional requirement.” It further observed, “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 Court recorded, “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.” Referring to precedent, it stated that the Supreme Court had held that the requirement of informing a person of the written grounds of arrest is mandatory. It further observed that in a later decision it was held that there is no mandatory requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing. The Court then recorded that the three-Judge Bench held, “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.”
With respect to NDPS cases, the Court noted earlier decisions taking the view that specification of the quantity of the contraband seized is mandatory for effective communication of the grounds of arrest. The Court observed, “Indeed, the said notice does not mention the quantity of the contraband involved in the case.” It then stated, “However, it is relevant to note that no contraband was seized from the possession of the applicant.”
The Court further recorded, “The specific allegation against the applicant is that he supplied the contraband involved in the case to accused Nos.3 and 8 from Bangalore and stayed with them in a lodge at Bangalore.” It added, “This specific allegation against the applicant is clearly mentioned in the notice issued to him under Section 47 of the BNSS.”
Clarifying the position, the Court observed, “The specification of the quantity of contraband seized needs to be communicated only to those accused from whose possession the contraband was seized.” It further stated, “As for the other accused, from whom no contraband was seized but who are otherwise involved in the crime, it is sufficient if their role in the crime and the grounds for their arrest are communicated to them.” Finally, the Court concluded, “Therefore, I find that there is satisfactory compliance with Section 47 of the BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.”
The Court held, “Therefore, I find that there is satisfactory compliance with Section 47 of the BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.” It ordered, “The bail application is accordingly dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri. P. Mohamed Sabah, Sri. Libin Stanley, Smt. Saipooja, Sri. Sadik Ismayil, Smt. R. Gayathri, Sri. M. Mahin Hamza, Shri. Alwin Joseph, Shri. Benson Ambrose
For the Respondents: Sri. K.A. Noushad, Senior Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Imran @ Hamsath Ikthiyar @ Irshad v State of Kerala
Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:10993
Case Number: Bail Appl. No. 12588 of 2025
Bench: Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath
