Quantity Of Contraband Seized In NDPS Cases Must Be Specified For Effective Communication Of Grounds Of Arrest: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has reiterated that the quantity of contraband seized as per the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) has to be specified for an effective communication of grounds of arrest to an accused.

Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath relied on various precedents laid down by the Apex Court, including Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others, Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, Ahmed Mansoor v. State, Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another and by the High Court (Yazin S. v. State of Kerala, Rayees R.M. v. State of Kerala and Vishnu N.P. v. State of Kerala) and summarised the principles laid down regarding effective communication of grounds of arrest.

The Court observed:

“The following principles of law emerge from the above- mentioned binding precedents.

(i) The constitutional requirement of informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes, including offences under IPC/BNS.

(ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he understands.

(iii) In cases where the arresting officer/person is unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing soon after arrest, it shall be so done orally. The said grounds shall be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours before the production of the arrestee for the remand proceedings before the Magistrate.

(iv) In NDPS cases, specification of the quantity of the contraband seized is mandatory for effective communication of the grounds of arrest.

(v) In case of non compliance of the above, the arrest and the subsequent remand would be rendered illegal, and the arrestee should be set free forthwith.

(vi) The grounds of arrest in respect of a person arrested on a warrant are not required to be furnished to him separately.

(vi) The burden is on the police to establish the proper communication of the grounds of arrest.

(vii) The filing of a charge sheet and cognizance of the order cannot validate an unconstitutional arrest.”

The Court was considering an application preferred by the sole accused in a NDPS case seeking regular bail. He is alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 22(b)(ii)(C) and 8(c) of the Act for possessing 23.4 kg of Ganja and was arrested.

The accused submitted that his arrest was illegal and he is to be released on bail since the grounds of his arrest was not communicated in a language known to him, a native of West Bengal. The arrest memo was in English and Malayalam while the arrest intimation given to his relative was in Malayalam.

The Court found that prima facie, there are materials connecting the accused to the crime but it went on to consider the question of non-communication of arrest. It looked into Mihir Shah, which held that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he or she understands and that the judgment would operate prospectively.

Noting that the arrest of the accused was prior to the afore decision, the Court opined that the judgment would not be applicable in the present case.

Looking at the seizure mahazar, the Court noted that there is a clear statement regarding communication of grounds at the time of arrest itself and, communication to the arrestee's father via telephone. Thus, it felt that the requirement of communication of arrest is satisfied in the case.

The Court, thus, dismissed the bail application.

Case No: Bail Appl. No. 14491 of 2025

Case Title: Kamal Kumar Mandal v. State of Kerala and Anr

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 63

Counsel for the petitioner: Sam Isaac Pothiyil, S. Suraja, Muhammed Suhair C.A., Akshaya N.K.

Counsel for the respondents: M.C. Ashi – Senior Public Prosecutor

Click to Read/Download Order