ORDER : 1. This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short, BNSS ), seeking regular bail. 2. The applicants are the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No.52/2026 of Karipur Police Station, Malappuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Section 22 (c) r/w Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act'). 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 22/1/2026 at about 6.50 a.m, acting on confidential information, the police intercepted the applicants and recovered 1.480 grams of MDMA from the possession of the applicant No.1 and that upon questioning, he disclosed that additional MDMA procured from another accused had been kept for sale as per the instruction of the accused No.4, pursuant to which the police recovered 39.110 grams of MDMA from the sunshade of a house situated in the same compound of the residence of accused No.4, and it is on the basis of such alleged disclosure and recovery that the applicants have been implicated for the offences mentioned above. 4. I have heard Sri. V.Visal Ajayan, the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri.M.C.Ashi, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary. 5. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are in custody since 22/1/2026 and the grounds of arrest were not communicated in accordance with law at the time of their arrest. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the bail application and submitted that the grounds of arrest were duly communicated. 6. Though prima facie there are materials on record to connect the applicants with the crime, since the applicants have raised a question of absence of communication of the grounds of their arrest, let me consider the same. 7. It is now well settled that the requirement of informing a person of the grounds for arrest is a mandatory requirement of Art.22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of BNSS and absence of the same would render the arrest illegal (See. 7. It is now well settled that the requirement of informing a person of the grounds for arrest is a mandatory requirement of Art.22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of BNSS and absence of the same would render the arrest illegal (See. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others [ (2024) 7 SCC 576 ] , Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [ (2024) 8 SCC 254 ] , Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others (2025 SCC OnLine SC 269] and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356). The Supreme Court in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228) has held that the grounds of arrest should not only be provided to the arrestee but also to his family members and relatives so that necessary arrangements are made to secure the release of the person arrested at the earliest possible opportunity so as to make the mandate of Art.22(1) meaningful and effective, failing which, such arrest would be rendered illegal. 8. In this case, the perusal of the records would show that the grounds of arrest were duly communicated to the applicants in writing in terms of Section 47 of the BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The applicants were arrested and produced before the Magistrate at 2.15 a.m. on 23/1/2026. Admittedly, before the production of the applicants before the Magistrate, the grounds of arrest were not communicated in writing to the relatives of the applicants. It was informed over phone only. Since the arrest is after the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), the communication of arrest to the relative of the applicants in writing is necessary. Hence, the learned Magistrate gave a direction to the investigating officer to inform the grounds of arrest to the relative or friend or nominated persons of the applicants within 24 hours and file a report of compliance. Thereafter, the investigating officer informed the grounds of arrest to the relative by sending the same through WhatsApp at 7.00 p.m. on 23/1/2026. The screenshot of the WhatsApp message has been produced. Thereafter, the investigating officer informed the grounds of arrest to the relative by sending the same through WhatsApp at 7.00 p.m. on 23/1/2026. The screenshot of the WhatsApp message has been produced. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that since the grounds of arrest in writing were not communicated to the relative at least two hours prior to the production of the applicants before the Magistrate as laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), there is infraction of Section 48 of the . I cannot subscribe to the said argument. The requirement to inform the grounds for arrest at least within two hours of production before the Magistrate as laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) is only to the accused and not to the relative. No outer time is fixed for issuing arrest intimation to a relative. The records would show that the grounds for arrest were intimated to the relative without any considerable delay of the production of the applicants before the Magistrate. Hence, I am of the view that there is substantial compliance of of the. The bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.