While dismissing the bail application of a man booked in an NDPS Act case, the Kerala High Court has held that the specification of the quantity of contraband seized needs to be communicated only to those accused from whom the seizure was made. The High Court made it clear that only the role in the crime and the grounds for arrest are to be communicated to those accused, from whose possession no contraband was seized.

The High Court was considering an application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking regular bail.

The Single Bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath held, “The ruling in Yazin (supra), Rayees (supra), and Vishnu (supra) that, in crimes registered under the NDPS Act, communication of the quantity of the contraband seized is mandatory, cannot be interpreted to mean that it applies to all accused regardless of their complicity in the crime. The specification of the quantity of contraband seized needs to be communicated only to those accused from whose possession the contraband was seized. As for the other accused, from whom no contraband was seized but who are otherwise involved in the crime, it is sufficient if their role in the crime and the grounds for their arrest are communicated to them.”

Advocate P.Mohamed Sabah represented the Petitioner while Senior Public Prosecutor K.A.Noushad represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The first and second accused persons were found in possession of 221.89 grams of MDMA inside an almirah in a room of a Hotel for sale. They were booked in the case registered under Sections 22(c), 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The first accused had approached the High Court.

Arguments

It was the case of the applicant that the requirement of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest is mandatory under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS. It was argued that since the applicant was not furnished with the grounds of arrest, his arrest was illegal.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that the applicant was arrested on May 20, 2025, and since then, he has been in judicial custody.

The Bench explained that Section 35(1) of BNSS lists cases when police may arrest a person without a warrant. Section 47 of BNSS states that every police officer or other person arresting any person without a warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest.

“Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India provides that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. Thus, the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory statutory and constitutional requirement. Noncompliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution will be a violation of the fundamental right of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. It will also amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution”, it stated.

Reference was made to the judgment in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others and Prabir Purkayastha v.State (NCT of Delhi) (2024), wherein the Apex Court has held that the requirement of informing a person of the written grounds of arrest in writing is a mandatory requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS and absence of the same would render the arrest illegal.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that no contraband was seized from the possession of the applicant. The contraband was seized from the possession of the third and the eighth accused. The Bench also took note of the specific allegation against the applicant that he supplied the contraband involved in the case to the third and eighth accused from Bangalore and stayed with them in a lodge at Bangalore. This specific allegation against the applicant was also mentioned in the notice issued to him under Section 47 of the BNSS.

The Bench made it clear that for the accused, from whom no contraband was seized but who are otherwise involved in the crime, it is sufficient if their role in the crime and the grounds for their arrest are communicated to them.

Considering that the specific role of the applicant in the crime and the detailed grounds for his arrest were mentioned in the notice issued to him under Sections 47 and 35(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, the Bench held, “Therefore, I find that there is satisfactory compliance with Section 47 of the BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.” Thus, in light of such facts and circumstances, the Bench dismissed the bail application.

Cause Title: Imran @ Hamsath Ikthiyar @ Irshad v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:10993)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates P.Mohamed Sabah, Libin Stanley, Saipooja, Sadik Ismayil, R.Gayathri, M.Mahin Hamza, Alwin Joseph, Benson Ambrose

Respondent: Senior Public Prosecutor K.A.Noushad

Click here to read/download Order


Kerala High CourtJustice Kauser Edappagath

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.