The Kerala High Court has rejected the bail plea of an accused booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), holding that investigators had prima facie material linking him to the offence and had substantially complied with the legal requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest.
Justice Kauser Edappagath delivered the ruling while considering the applicant’s challenge to the legality of his arrest.
Arrest and Allegations
The applicant, the sole accused in the case, was apprehended near the Muthanga Police Check Post. The police allegedly recovered and seized approximately 95.93 grams of MDMA from a car in which he was travelling. Authorities registered a crime against him under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act.
Defence Argument on Illegality of Arrest
Counsel for the applicant—P. Mohamed Sabah, Libin Stanley, Saipooja, Sadik Ismayil, R. Gayathri, M. Mahin Hamza, Alwin Joseph and Benson Ambrose—argued that the arrest violated constitutional and statutory safeguards.
They contended that the authorities failed to comply with Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), both of which mandate communication of the grounds of arrest. According to the defence, this non-compliance rendered the arrest illegal and entitled the accused to bail.
Prosecution’s Stand
Senior Public Prosecutor M.C. Ashi, appearing for the respondents, opposed the plea. The prosecution submitted that the arresting officers had complied with all mandatory procedures.
Court’s Analysis on Communication of Arrest Grounds
The Court examined the remand report and the legal position on communication of arrest grounds. Justice Edappagath noted that the accused’s relative had been contacted over the phone and asked to appear before the arresting officer. The relative declined to appear. Thereafter, the officer sent a WhatsApp message informing him of the grounds of arrest.
The Court reiterated that written communication of the grounds of arrest is a legal mandate. However, in the facts of the present case, the Court found that the officer had taken reasonable steps to comply with the requirement.
The Court observed:
“Even though the relative was asked over the phone to appear before the arresting officer, he expressed his unwillingness to appear. Accordingly, the grounds of arrest were intimated to him through a WhatsApp message. Hence, I am of the view that there is substantial compliance. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.”
Conclusion
The Court found prima facie material connecting the accused with the alleged offence under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. It held that the communication of arrest grounds through WhatsApp, after the relative refused to appear, amounted to substantial compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the bail application in Shameem v. State of Kerala and Anr.
