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

2. The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.109/2025 of Palakkad Excise Range Office, Palakkad District. The offence alleged is punishable under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act’).

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 22.09.2025 at 4.30 p.m., on platform No.3 of the Palakkad Junction Railway Station at Olavakkode, the applicant was found in possession of 63.379 grams of methamphetamine in violation of the NDPS Act.

Thus, the applicant has committed the aforementioned offence.

4. I have heard Sri.Shajin S. Hameed, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.K.A. Noushad, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 22.09.2025, and the grounds of arrest were not communicated in accordance with the 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.

6. 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.

7. It is now well settled that the requirement to inform 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)]. Recently in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356), the three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that grounds of arrest must be informed to the arrested person in every case without exception, and the mode of communication of such grounds must be in writing in the language he understands. It was further held that non-supply of grounds of arrest in writing to the arrestee before or immediately after arrest would not vitiate such arrest, provided said grounds are supplied in writing within a reasonable time and in any case two hours before the production of the arrestee before the Magistrate. However, it was clarified that the requirement to communicate the written grounds of arrest to the arrestee would only operate prospectively.

8. 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.

9. The case of the applicant is that the written grounds of arrest were not intimated to his relative and hence the arrest stands vitiated and he is entitled to be released on bail. I went through the case diary. It shows that the grounds of arrest were intimated to the applicant and all formalities in accordance with Chapter V of BNSS have been complied with. The notice served on the applicant under Section 47 of BNSS shows that at the time of his arrest, the specific grounds of arrest, the reasons for arrest and the quantity of the contraband seized were communicated to him. The copy of the arrest intimation given to the relative of the applicant under Section 48 of the BNSS forms part of the case records. It also shows that the specific grounds of arrest, the reasons for arrest and the quantity of contraband seized were stated therein. However, the endorsement therein would show that it was intimated over the phone only. The Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) has clarified that the requirement to communicate the written grounds of arrest to the arrestee would only operate prospectively. The said dictum could be applied to the requirement to communicate the written grounds of arrest to the relatives of the arrestee as well. Thus, the mandate to furnish the written grounds of arrest to the arrestee as well as to his relatives, cannot be applied to arrests made before the date of the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra). If the arrest is made before the date of judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), the communication of the grounds of arrest to the arrestee as well as to his relative over phone or in person is sufficient for the compliance of Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. In this case, the arrest was before the date of the said judgment and the grounds of arrest were intimated to the applicant in writing and to his relative over phone. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

                   The bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.