In a significant procedural challenge under the narcotics law, the Kerala High Court stepped in to examine whether an accused booked with nearly 96 grams of MDMA was illegally arrested in violation of his constitutional rights. The sole accused in a 2025 NDPS case from Sulthan Bathery argued that police failed to properly communicate the grounds of his arrest, a safeguard rooted in Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS, raising the stakes in a prosecution involving commercial quantity contraband.
The controversy began when the applicant was intercepted near the Muthanga Police Check Post in Wayanad on November 22, 2025, allegedly transporting 95.93 grams of MDMA in a car. Charged under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, he has remained in judicial custody since his arrest. His counsel contended that the arrest was vitiated because the grounds were not furnished in writing, as mandated by recent Supreme Court rulings.
Relying on decisions such as Pankaj Bansal and Mihir Rajesh Shah, it was argued that written communication of the grounds of arrest, particularly specifying the quantity of contraband in NDPS cases, is not a mere technicality but a constitutional imperative. The State countered that all procedures under Chapter V of the BNSS were followed and pointed to the remand records to demonstrate compliance.
The Court reaffirmed that the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest is “not a formality but a mandatory statutory and constitutional requirement,” and that failure to comply could render an arrest illegal. However, after examining the case diary and remand report, the Bench found that the accused’s relative had been informed of the arrest through WhatsApp after declining to appear in person. Holding this to be “substantial compliance,” the Court ruled that the procedural safeguard had not been breached.
Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.
Picture Source :
