Does Informing Live-In Partner's Father Fulfil Police Duty To Notify Family Of Arrest? Kerala High Court Answers
The Kerala High Court recently granted bail to an NDPS accused after finding that the legal requirement to inform his relative or friend about arrest was not satisfied in the case. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 407]Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that the grounds of arrest was communicated only to the father of the applicant's live-in partner, who is a co-accused (accused No. 2) in the case....
The Kerala High Court recently granted bail to an NDPS accused after finding that the legal requirement to inform his relative or friend about arrest was not satisfied in the case. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 407]
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that the grounds of arrest was communicated only to the father of the applicant's live-in partner, who is a co-accused (accused No. 2) in the case. This, according to the Court, did not satisfy the legal requirement under Section 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Section 48 mandates a person making an arrest to give information regarding the arrest and the holding place of the arrestee to his relatives or friends or any any other person nominated by the arrested person.
The Court held:
“The definite case of the applicant is that he has no connection whatsoever with the father of the accused No.2 and they are living together without the knowledge of the father of the accused No.2. The father of the accused No.2 cannot be termed as a relative of the applicant, inasmuch as the applicant and the accused No.2 are not legally married. There is nothing in the mahazar, remand report or case diary to show that the intimation regarding the arrest of the applicant was communicated to the father of the accused No.2 as instructed by the applicant. Hence, I am of the view that there is non-compliance of Section 48 of BNSS and the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.”
The applicant before the Court was the 1st accused in a criminal case, who is alleged to have committed the offences under Section 22(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution allegation was that the applicant and the accused No. 2 were found in possession of 6.031 gm of MDMA near the metro station pillar and thereby, they committed the afore offences.
The applicant was arrest and has been custody since June 11, 2026 and his contention was that the grounds of arrest were not communicated in accordance with law. The public prosecutor opposed the bail and submitted that grounds were duly communicated.
After hearing the parties. the Court referred to the position of law settled by precedents that requirement of communication of grounds of arrest is mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS.
Thereafter, it adverted to the facts of the case and noted that the applicant was duly communicated regarding the grounds of his arrest as per Section 47 BNSS but the requirement under Section 48 was not satisfied.
The Court, thus, was of the view that bail can be granted in the case on conditions.
Case No: Bail Appl. No. 3744 of 2026
Case Title: Muhashib v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 407
Counsel for the petitioner: P. Mohamed Sabah, Libin Stanley, Saipooja, Sadik Ismayil, R. Gayathri, M. Mahin Hamza, Alwin Joseph, Benson Ambrose
Counsel for the respondents: Thomas Sabu Vadakekut - Public Prosecutor