Written communication of grounds of arrest to relatives under BNSS operates prospectively and not retrospectively.

On August 2, 2024, the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) intercepted a truck driven by the petitioner near a roadside dhaba in Kamrup

A search of a specially constructed cavity in the truck led to the recovery of 90 packets of ganja (commercial quantity)

The petitioner was arrested on August 3, 2024

Following the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted on January 29, 2025, under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 28, 29, 35, and 54 of the NDPS Act

The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, alleging procedural violations during his arrest

Section 47 of the BNSS, which mandates that the grounds of arrest be communicated to the accused

Section 48 of the BNSS, regarding the obligation to inform a nominated person or relative about the arrest

Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes a rigorous bar on bail unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty

Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2025 INSC 162) regarding the written communication of arrest grounds to relatives

Amir Khan and Ors. v. Union of India (GAHC 010132822025), which held that the requirement in Vihaan Kumar operates prospectively and does not invalidate arrests made prior to that judgment

The court found no violation of Section 47 of the BNSS, noting that while the initial notice may have been sparse, the memorandum of arrest signed by the petitioner and his voluntary statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act clearly demonstrated that he was aware of the grounds of arrest in a language he understood

Regarding Section 48 of the BNSS, the court observed that the petitioner had personally informed his son via mobile phone and the NCB had requested the local police station to intimate the family

Even if a record of final communication by the local police was missing, the court held—applying the principle from Amir Khan—that the mandatory requirement of providing written grounds to relatives established in Vihaan Kumar (2025) operates prospectively

Since the petitioner’s arrest occurred in 2024, the subsequent procedural standard did not render the arrest illegal

Finally, the court held that because a commercial quantity of drugs was recovered from the petitioner's conscious possession, the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied, as there were no grounds to believe the petitioner was not guilty

The court further held that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not overcome given the commercial quantity of the contraband

Consequently, the prayer for bail was rejected, and the petition was dismissed