Muhammed Midlaj K. vs State Of Kerala & Anr.

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.1 in Crime No.86/2025 of Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Ernakulam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A) and 22(c) read with 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the NDPS Act).

The prosecution case, in short, is that on 02.11.2025 at 07.00 a.m, the applicant along with the accused Nos.2 to 4 were found in possession of 70.473 grams of MDMA and 2.3245 grams of Ganja for the purpose of sale in the 3rd floor of Skylux Apartments, Vaduthala in contravention of the NDPS Act and thereby committed the offences.

I have heard Sri. Sam Isaac Pothiyil, the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt. Aneeda Beegum, 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 and his relative of the grounds of arrest is mandatory under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS and inasmuch as the grounds of arrest were not communicated in accordance with law, his arrest was illegal and 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 02.11.2025 and since then he is 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.

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 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. It shows that the grounds of arrest were duly intimated to the applicant and his relative and all formalities in accordance with Chapter V of the BNSS have been complied with. The notices served on the applicant under Section 47 of the BNSS and to his relative under Section 48 of the BNSS, served through WhatsApp show that at the time of the arrest, the specific grounds and reasons for arrest were communicated to them. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. The bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.