S.48 BNSS Doesn't Mandate Written Intimation Of Arrest To Relatives, Intimation Through Phone Call/ SMS Valid: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently held that section 48 of the BNSS does not mandate that the intimation of arrest be given in writing to the relatives of the arrested persons. The court held that an intimation through phone call or SMS is a valid intimation. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 337] Justice R Vijayakumar thus refused to interfere with the remand of four persons arrested in an NDPS case on the ground that the intimation was not given to the relatives in writing. The court noted that the relatives, friends and other persons nominated by the arrested persons had been informed about the arrest through SMS or phone call, based on the information provided, and there was no allegation from the relative that they were not informed. “A perusal of Section 48 of BNSS clearly reveals that the information relating to the arrest and the place where the arrest person is being held, has to be informed to the relatives, friends or such other persons as may be disclosed or nominated by arrested person. Only based on the information provided by the accused persons, through phone call and SMS, the relatives have been informed. The statutory provisions does not provide for intimation in writing to the relative of the accused persons. The impugned remand order also records that the intimation has already been given. No affidavit has been filed by any one of the relatives of the accused persons alleging that they were not informed about the arrest and the place of arrest. In such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the arrest intimation was not given in writing to the relatives is not legally sustainable,” the court held. The court was hearing a plea filed by four persons seeking to set aside the order of remand passed by the Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate. The petitioners were alleged to have committed offences under Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 29(1), and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The petitioners challenged the remand order on the ground that the arrest memo did not contain full particulars and that the arrest intimation was not given in writing to their family members or relatives. The petitioners argued that the arrest memo was in a printed format and it did not contain the grounds of arrest. It was thus argued that the arrest memo was defective in nature. The petitioner argued that the reasons for arrest were different from the grounds of arrest, and such grounds of arrest should contain all details in hand of the investigating officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused. It was argued that the grounds of arrest should be informed in writing to the family members of the arrested person and not doing the same would make the remand order invalid. The State, on the other hand, argued that the arrest memo clearly indicated that all persons were arrested while they were carrying 200 kg of Ganja for smuggling into Srilanka. The court noted that the grounds of arrest were intimated to the accused persons and it was signed by all of them in the presence of the witnesses. Thus, the state argued that the grounds of arrest were not defective in nature. It was also argued that the arrest intimation was given to the relatives through phone and SMS. The court agreed with the prosecution and noted that the arrest memo clearly contained the grounds of arrest and the accused were informed of the same. The court thus rejected the ground raised by the petitioner that the arrest memo was defective. The court also noted that the arrest intimation was given to the relatives of the arrested persons through phone call/SMS based on the information provided by them. Thus, the court observed that the challenge to the remand order was only an afterthought as the petitioners were not successful in getting regular bail after failing of the chargesheet. The court thus dismissed the plea.Also Read: Intimation Of Arrest To Family Via WhatsApp Without Proof Of Service Not Enough Under S.48 BNSS: Gauhati High Court Grants Bail Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. K. Subburaj Counsel for Respondent: Mr. P. Samuel Gunasingh Government Advocate (Crl.side) Case Title: Dhetchinamoorthy @ Dakshinamoorthy v State Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 337 Case No: Crl OP(MD).No.1636 of 2026Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

S.48 BNSS Doesn't Mandate Written Intimation Of Arrest To Relatives, Intimation Through Phone Call/ SMS Valid: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

S.48 BNSS Doesn't Mandate Written Intimation Of Arrest To Relatives, Intimation Through Phone Call/ SMS Valid: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers