Grounds of arrest must be given in writing, mere phone call to relative not enough: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently reiterated that the failure to communicate the grounds for arresting a person to him and his relatives in writing would render the arrest illegal, and that a mere phone call to the relatives conveying such information is not enough [Basheer Thaliyil v State of Kerala & anr].

Justice Kausar Edappagath made the observation while granting bail to a man accused in a drug trafficking case.

The Court found that while the grounds of arrest had been communicated to the accused himself, they were not furnished in writing to his relatives, who were merely informed over the phone.

"In the instant case, the perusal of the records show that the grounds of arrest were duly communicated to the arrestee. However, the grounds of arrest were not intimated to the relative in writing. Admittedly, the relative was intimated over phone only," the Court noted.

It proceeded to grant bail in the present case.

"Inasmuch as the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the relatives of the applicant in writing, the arrest stands vitiated and he is entitled to be released on bail," the Court said.

The bail application before the Court was filed by one Basheer Thaliyil. He was among those accused of being involved in trafficking MDMA that was recovered from a building housing a CPM branch committee office in Malappuram.

The crime registered by Karipur Police Station in Malappuram district cited Sections 22(c) (punishment for possession of commercial quantity of drugs) and 29 (punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Thaliyil was arrested on January 23, 2026. In his bail application, he argued that his arrest was illegal as the grounds for his arrest were not communicated properly.

In its February 19 order, the Court observed that there is a constitutional mandate under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India to communicate the grounds of arrest to the accused.

Further, Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), provides that an accused has the right to be informed about the grounds of arrest and of right to bail.

The Bench added that after the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another, it is necessary to communicate written grounds for an arrest. Further, according to the judgment in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the grounds of arrest should not only be provided to the arrestee but also to his family members and relatives.

The purpose of this is to enable the arrested person and his family to take immediate steps to secure his release, thereby making the constitutional protection under Article 22 meaningful. Failure to convey such written grounds of arrest would render the arrest illegal, the Court noted.

The Court went on to note that even though there were prima facie materials connecting the accused to the alleged crime, the police's failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing to his relatives made the arrest illegal.

The Court, therefore, granted Thaliyil bail and directed the Jail Superintendent of the district jail at Manjeri to release him from prison.

Advocates P Mohamed Sabah, Libin Stanley, Saipooja, Sadik Ismayil, R Gayathri, M Mahin Hamza, Alwin Joseph and Benson Ambrose appeared for the accused.

Senior public prosecutor Sreeja V represented the State.

[Read Order]