JUDGMENT : N. NAGARESH, J. The petitioner states that he was originally arrested on 20.05.2025 in Crime No.500/2025 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 . According to the petitioner, the arrest was vitiated due to non-compliance of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India . Grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner personally. 2. After 93 days of illegal detention of the petitioner, this Court in B.A. No.9877 of 2025 issued order dated 21.08.2025 declaring that the arrest was vitiated and directed the respondents to immediately release the petitioner. After releasing the petitioner on 22.08.2025, the petitioner was illegally re-arrested for the same crime without fresh grounds, violating Article 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India , contends the petitioner. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents. 4. It is evident that the petitioner was arrested and was in custody from 20.05.2025 to 21.08.2025 in District Jail, Kozhikode. The grounds for arrest were not disclosed to the petitioner. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and others [ (2024) 7 SCC 576 ] , Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [ (2024) 8 SCC 254 ] and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and another [2025 SCC Online SC 269], held that the requirement of informing a person of grounds for arrest is mandatory requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India . The Apex Court held that the said information must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds must be communicated to the arrested person effectively in a language he understands. 5. While arresting the petitioner on 20.05.2025, the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court as per Ext.P2 order directed the Superintendent of District Jail, Kozhikode to release the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner was again re-arrested. The present grievance of the petitioner is on the re-arrest. According to the petitioner, the re-arrest perpetuates the same constitutional violation that has vitiated the original arrest. The petitioner has not been communicated with the grounds of arrest personally while re-arresting the petitioner. There is violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India , contends the petitioner. 6. The present grievance of the petitioner is on the re-arrest. According to the petitioner, the re-arrest perpetuates the same constitutional violation that has vitiated the original arrest. The petitioner has not been communicated with the grounds of arrest personally while re-arresting the petitioner. There is violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India , contends the petitioner. 6. I find that the earlier arrest of the petitioner was interfered by this Court as per Ext.P2 order in B.A.No.9877 of 2025 finding that the grounds of arrest were not disclosed. That will not prevent the police from arresting the petitioner again in compliance of the procedure. In Babu M. v. State of Kerala [ 2025 (2) KLT 817 ], this Court has held that even when an accused is released due to non-disclosure of grounds, the accused can be re-arrested by the investigating agency which will be at liberty to arrest the accused again in accordance with law. The contention of the petitioner in this case is that the procedure has not been complied with even during the re-arrest. 7. Even if that be the case, the petitioner's remedy is to seek bail. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable under these circumstances. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.