Kerala High Court: The accused filed the present bail application for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’) as he was found in possession of ganja. A Single Judge Bench of Bechu Kurian Thomas, J., on being satisfied that the accused was not informed about the grounds for arrest, directed his release on bail.
On 25-11-2023, at about 1.45 p.m., the accused was found in possession of 43.100 kg. of ganja and was arrested on the same day and has been in custody since then. The accused alleged that the grounds for arrest were not communicated to him or his relatives at the time of his arrest. However, the Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application stating that the grounds for arrest were duly communicated and since the contraband seized from the accused was a commercial quantity, the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would apply and hence the accused ought not to be released on bail.
The Court referred to Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254, and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2025) 5 SCC 799, wherein it was held that the requirement of informing a person of grounds for arrest was mandatory as per Article 22(1) of the Constitution and also that the information of the grounds for arrest must be provided to the arrested person in a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts confuting the grounds was imparted and must be communicated to him in the language which he understood.
The Court perused the case diary and found that neither in the arrest intimation nor in the arrest memo was there anything to indicate that the grounds for arrest were communicated to the accused. The Court noted that the Sessions Judge had observed that the grounds for arrest were communicated to the petitioner based on the notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which pertained to the search of the accused and concluded that the said notice could not be treated as a communication of the grounds for arrest.
Based on the above observations, the Court was satisfied that the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the accused and directed his release on bail upon him executing a bond of Rs 1 lakh with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.
[Noushad v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 5524, decided on 25-7-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Accused: P. Mohamed Sabah, Libin Stanley, Saipooja, Sadik Ismayil, R. Gayathri, M. Mahin Hamza, Alwin Joseph, Benson Ambrose, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Noushad K.A. (PP).
Buy Constitution of India HERE
