Grounds of arrest must be clearly communicated; failure to do so can vitiate arrest and support bail relief.

Grounds of arrest must be communicated to the arrestee as a constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1), and where a statute prescribes a specific mode of communication, that mode must be followed strictly. Mere reference to the offence or penal provision is insufficient unless the actual grounds are reduced into writing and contemporaneously explained or read over at the time of arrest. Subsequent explanations do not cure the defect without contemporaneous compliance. On the facts, there was no disclosure of the grounds of arrest and no record showing compliance, so the arrest was treated as vitiated and bail was held to follow despite the NDPS restrictions.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-communication of the grounds of arrest vitiated the arrest and entitled the petitioner to bail despite the statutory restrictions governing the NDPS case.

Analysis: The governing principle is that grounds of arrest must be communicated to the arrestee as a constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Where a statute prescribes a specific mode of communication, that mode must be followed scrupulously. Even where written communication is not expressly mandated in every case, there must be contemporaneous material showing that the grounds were reduced into writing and explained or read over to the accused at the time of arrest. Mere reference to the case or the penal provision, without disclosure of the actual grounds, is insufficient. Subsequent explanations cannot cure the defect in the absence of such contemporaneous compliance. The Court found no disclosure of the grounds of arrest and no contemporaneous record showing compliance.

Conclusion: The arrest was treated as vitiated for breach of Article 22(1), and the petitioner was held entitled to release on bail.

---