Muhammad Fawaz 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.3 in Crime No.838/2025 of Aroor Police Station, Alappuzha District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution case, in short, is that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 with the assistance of the applicant 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 aforementioned offences.

I have heard Sri.Francis Assisi, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.Thomas Sabu Vadakekut, the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 15.06.2026 and the grounds of arrest were not communicated in accordance with law at the time of his arrest. The learned 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.

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).

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.

Since the applicant was produced on production warrant, communication of the grounds of arrest to him is not necessary. However, the communication of the grounds of arrest to the relative is necessary. I have perused the records. The records would show that the communication served to the relative of the applicant is silent as to the reason for arrest, the quantity of the contraband seized and also the grounds of arrest. Hence, I am of the view that there was no proper communication of grounds of arrest in terms of Section 48(1) of the BNSS and his arrest is vitiated.

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