Fayis Muhammed vs State Of Kerala

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 No.6 in Crime No.512/2026 of Perambra Police Station, Kozhikode District. The offence alleged is punishable under Section 22(b) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the NDPS Act).

The prosecution case, in short, is that on 02.07.2026 at 17.30 hours, the accused Nos. 1 to 5 were found in possession of 2.157 grams of MDMA in a car bearing registration number KL-56-R-3632 near the Pandikkode Marutheri roadside in Kozhikode district in contravention of the NDPS Act. Subsequent investigation revealed the involvement of the applicant and thereby the applicant has committed the offence.

I have heard Sri.M. Devesh, the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt. Aneeda Beegum, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 01.09.2026 and the grounds of arrest were not communicated to his relative or friend in accordance with law at the time of his arrest. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the bail application and submitted that the grounds of arrest were duly communicated.

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.

Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as Section 47 of the BNSS (Section 50 of Cr.P.C) ordains that an arrested person should be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds of such arrest. Section 48 of the BNSS (Section 50-A of Cr.P.C) casts the the obligation on the person making arrest to give the information regarding arrest to a relative or friend of the arrestee. Whether the failure to communicate the written grounds of arrest to the arrestee or to his relatives would vitiate the arrest, necessitating the release of the accused is no longer res integra. Relying on Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS (Section 50 of Cr.P.C), the Supreme Court 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] held that the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest/detention is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation. The Supreme Court emphatically held that an arrest without such communication is illegal in the eyes of law. In Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356), the three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court made it clear that the grounds of arrest must be communicated to the arrested person in each and every case without exception and the mode of communication must be in writing in the language he understands. However, it was clarified that the requirement of communicating the written grounds of arrest to the arrestee would operate prospectively. In Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228), it was held that the grounds of arrest should not only be provided to the arrestee but also to his family members or relatives so that necessary arrangements are made to secure the release of the person arrested at the earliest possible opportunity to make the mandate of Article 22(1) meaningful and effective, failing which such arrest would be rendered illegal. The furnishing of the grounds of arrest to the detainee, and simultaneously to his relatives or friends, has thus been construed as an integral component of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and failure to comply with this dual requirement vitiates the arrest (see. Muhammed Ashfaq v. Union of India (2026 (5) KLT 271).

I went through the case diary. The applicant was in custody in connection with another crime. His formal arrest was recorded in jail. Though the grounds of arrest were duly communicated to the applicant in terms of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the BNSS, there is nothing on record to show that the grounds of arrest were communicated to the relative or friend of the applicant in terms of Section 48 of the BNSS. Therefore, the arrest is vitiated and the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions: -