NDPS Act | Exact Quantity Of Seized Contraband Need Not Be Stated In Grounds Of Arrest Notice If Nature Is Mentioned: Kerala High Court

Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that the intention behind mentioning the quantity is to enable the accused to know whether the offence if bailable or not and if the nature of quantity is mentioned, then it amounts to substantial compliance of the requirement under law for communicating arrest grounds.

“The object of mentioning the quantity is to enable the accused to identify whether the offence is bailable or non-bailable, and whether the quantity involved is small, intermediate, or commercial. Therefore, if the grounds for arrest state that the quantity seized is an intermediate or commercial quantity, that suffices to comply with Sections 47 and 48 of BNSS, even if the exact quantity is not specified,” the Court remarked.

The case before the Court was a bail application preferred by an accused in an NDPS case. He was arrested by the police when he was found in possession of around 195 grams of MDMA and a crime was registered by the police for the offence under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The petitioner contended that the mandatory requirement of informing arrest grounds as per Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita was not complied with. He contended that his arrest was illegal and was therefore, he was entitled to be released on bail.

The prosecution argued that the legal formalities were complied with and the alleged incident was an intentional criminal act.

The Court noted that prima facie there are materials to connect the petitioner with the crime but looked into the question of non-compliance of the mandate of communicating grounds of arrest.

The petitioner told that although grounds and reasons of arrest were communicated to him and his relative, there is no mention of the quantity of contraband seized.

However, the Court noted that the notice specifies that the quantity seized was commercial quantity and since the very object of mention the quantity was to enable the accused to know whether the offence was bailable or not and what the nature of the quantity is, the Court felt that there is no need to specific the exact quantity.

The Court found that there has been proper communication of grounds of arrest to the petitioner and relative. Thus, it dismissed the bail application.

Case No: B.A. No. 1388 of 2026

Case Title: Arun Kumar P. v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 172

Counsel for the petitioners: P.Mohamed Sabah, Libin Stanley, Saipooja, Sadik Ismayil, R.Gayathri, M.Mahin Hamza, Alwin Joseph, Benson Ambrose

Counsel for the respondents: Sreeja V. – Sr. Public Prosecutor

Click to Read/Download Order