Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Non-Compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India – Bail Applications.
2025 KER 48864 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2242
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bail Applications Nos. 6366, 6621, 6676, 6677, 6989, 6996, 7025, 7162, & 7266 of 2025
Decided on: 4th July 2025
Held:
-
Non-Compliance with Grounds for Arrest: The requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 52(1) of the NDPS Act to communicate the grounds for arrest to the accused is mandatory. Failure to effectively communicate these grounds renders the arrest illegal, entitling the accused to bail, even when statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply.
-
Long Period of Detention: Prolonged detention without trial does not automatically entitle an accused to bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotic drugs under the NDPS Act, as per Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal [(2022) 18 SCC 374], which prevails over Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2730).
-
Communication of Grounds: The grounds for arrest must be specific, personal to the accused, and communicated effectively in a language understood by the arrestee. While written communication is advisable, it is not mandatory as clarified in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana [AIR 2025 SC 1388]. Contemporaneous records, such as arrest memos or case diaries, must substantiate compliance with this requirement.
-
Outcome: Bail was granted in B.A. Nos. 6366, 6621, 6676, 6677, 6996, 7025, and 7266 of 2025 due to failure to communicate grounds for arrest, violating Article 22(1) and Section 52(1). Bail was denied in B.A. Nos. 6989 and 7162 of 2025, where records showed sufficient communication of grounds.
-
Conditions for Bail: Petitioners granted bail were required to execute a bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two solvent sureties, cooperate with the trial, refrain from intimidating witnesses or tampering with evidence, not commit similar offences, and not leave Kerala without court permission.
Cases Referred:
-
State of Kerala v. Rajesh [(2020) 12 SCC 122]
-
Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal [(2022) 18 SCC 374]
-
Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2730)
-
Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India [(2024) 7 SCC 576]
-
Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC 254]
-
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana [AIR 2025 SC 1388]
-
Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228]
-
M/s. IVECO Magirus Brandschutztechnik GMBH v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya [(2024) 2 SCC 86]
Keywords: Bail, NDPS Act, Article 22(1), Grounds for Arrest, Commercial Quantity, Constitutional Rights, Illegal Arrest
LAWYERS DIRECTORY
For Petitioners : Advs. N.A. Shafeek; Saipooja; P. Mohamed Sabah; Libin Stanley; Sadik Ismayil; R. Gayathri; M. Mahin Hamza; Alwin Joseph; Benson Ambrose; K.K. Dheerendrakrishnan; N.P. Asha & N.B. Fathima Sulfath
For Respondents : Advs. Noushad K.A ; Prasanth M.P. & Sreeja. V. (Government Pleaders)
K/767/2004 |
K/1130/2016 |
K/250/2015 |
K/3688/2022 |
K/113/2017 |
K/1415/2021 |
K/724/2024 |
K/1234/2003 |
K/1605/2003 |
K/553/2017 |
K/3809/2024 |
K/3419/1999 |
K/202/1997 |
