1. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

2. The petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.120/2025 of Chakkarakkal Police Station, Kannur District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 8, 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

3. The prosecution case is that, on 15.02.2025 at about 17:00 a.m., the petitioner and the other accused were found in possession of 130.440 grams of MDMA at Maniyaram Chila in Chembilod Amsom.

4. The petitioner was arrested on 15.02.2025 and he has been in judicial custody since then.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the officer who arrested the petitioner had not complied with the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the BNSS in the sense that the grounds of arrest were not communicated.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is substantial compliance of the requirement regarding the communication of the grounds of arrest.

8. The fundamental object sought to be subserved by Article 22 (1) are the following:

                  (a)      To apprise the arrested person of why he/she is being arrested.

                  (b)      To enable the arrestee to frame his defence against possible detention and to seek appropriate legal aid.

9. The mode of communication of grounds of arrest is to be in such a manner that the effectiveness of the same deserves to be tested on the touchstone whether the mode of communication subserves the fundamental object mentioned above.

10. The mode of conveying information of the grounds of arrest must be meaningful so as to serve the objects sought to be achieved. The requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest to an arrested person is sacrosanct and the same must not be breached under any situation. The grounds should be effectively and fully communicated in the language that the arrestee understands. The grounds of arrest are to be effectively communicated not only to the arrestee but also to his friends, relatives or any other nominated person as envisaged under Section 48 of the BNSS. Non-compliance of this constitutional requirement and the statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the detention of the arrestee or detainee being rendered illegal, as it would amount to violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee or detainee. Filing a chargesheet and order of cognizance will not validate the arrest which is per se unconstitutional. The burden is on the police to establish that the grounds of arrest were properly communicated to the arrestee. {Vide : Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India [(2024) 7 SCC 576], Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC 254], Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228], Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana [(2025) 5 SCC 799], Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another [2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356], Shahina v. State of Kerala [2025 (5) KHC 203] and Vishnu N.P. v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC OnLine 1262]}.

11. The Case Diary placed before me reveals that the grounds of arrest were not properly communicated to the petitioner and his friend or relative. Therefore, the mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS has been violated. The other accused in this case was also ordered to be released on bail by the Sessions Court on the same grounds. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail on conditions.

                  In the result, the Bail Application is allowed as follows:

                  (a) The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

                  (b) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on Mondays and Fridays between 10 A.M. and 11 A.M., until further orders.

                  (c) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the jurisdictional court. If he has no passport, the petitioner shall file an affidavit to that effect.

                  (d) The petitioner shall not leave State of Kerala without the permission of the jurisdictional court.

                  (e) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation.

                  (f) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or attempt to tamper with the evidence.

                  (g) The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

                  (h) If any of the bail conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court will be at liberty  to cancel the bail, in accordance with law.