ORDER : BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. This bail application is filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’). 2. Petitioner is the accused in O.R. No.06/2025-26/GST registered alleging offence punishable under Section 132 (1)(a)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 . 3. According to the prosecution, the accused operates 'Spa and Massage Service' in around 21 locations under different names for the financial year 2018-19 and 2024-25 by the name of 'Ayur Ayurvedic Beauty Clinic', engaging 100 employees. The prosecution alleges that the accused is carrying on the business without obtaining any GST registration or paying the GST, despite exceeding the limits of Rs. 20 Lakhs required for obtaining registration and had evaded tax to the tune of Rs.8.73,98,064/- and thus committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested on 27-07-2025 and he was granted interim bail by this Court on 17.07.2025. 4. Sri.Sadchith P. Kurup, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the petitioner or to his relatives, either in writing or otherwise. It was also submitted that the arrest was a highhanded arbitrary action and that despite the petitioner participating in the enquiry proceedings willingly, and even though the details of all transactions pointed out against the petitioner was available on record, he was arrested contrary to the statutory requirements and the constitutional mandate. It was further submitted that since the petitioner was arrested on 27.06.2025, his further detention is not required at all. 5. Sri. P.G. Jayashankar, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the second respondent and submitted, relying upon the counter affidavit filed by the investigating officer, that the grounds for arrest were effectively communicated to the petitioner as contemplated by law and that he was even explained satisfactorily about those grounds, apart from specifically informing a person by name Smithin about the grounds for his arrest. The learned Standing Counsel also pointed out that the petitioner's wife was also informed about the arrest, as evident from Annexure R2(a) arrest memo. It was further submitted that there was no demonstrable prejudice caused to the petitioner by non-service of the grounds for arrest. The learned Standing Counsel also pointed out that the petitioner's wife was also informed about the arrest, as evident from Annexure R2(a) arrest memo. It was further submitted that there was no demonstrable prejudice caused to the petitioner by non-service of the grounds for arrest. According to the learned counsel, though petitioner‘s arrest was neither the objective nor the aim of the respondent, for the purpose of proper investigation, it was required to confine him, especially since he evaded payment of GST on Spa and Massage Services. It was also submitted that petitioner had been receiving such supplies without issuing any invoices, receipt vouchers, and even without maintaining any transaction ledgers or financial statements, thereby evading GST to the tune of more than Rs.5 Crores. The learned Counsel submitted that the interim bail granted ought to be vacated and the bail application be dismissed 6. I have considered the rival contentions. 7. The first question to be considered is whether the grounds for arrest were communicated as contemplated by law. In the decisions 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) 5 SCC 799 , it has been held that the requirement of informing a person of grounds for arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) and also that the information of the grounds for arrest 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 the language which he understands. It has also been observed that the grounds for arrest must be communicated to the near relatives as well. Since those decisions have quite explicitly laid down the propositions of law, reproduction of the observations therein would only be a superfluous exercise. 8. However, a reference to certain principles delineated in a recent decision of the Supreme Court would be beneficial. Since those decisions have quite explicitly laid down the propositions of law, reproduction of the observations therein would only be a superfluous exercise. 8. However, a reference to certain principles delineated in a recent decision of the Supreme Court would be beneficial. After analyzing various decisions including those referred to in the preceding paragraph, the Supreme Court had, in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh [ 2025 INSC 768 ] culled out the following principles of law: “a) The requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional condition. b) Once a person is arrested, his right to liberty under Art.21 is curtailed. When such an important fundamental right is curtailed, it is necessary that the person concerned must understand on what grounds he has been arrested. c) The mode of conveying the information of the grounds of arrest must be meaningful so as to serve the true object underlying Art.22(1). d) If the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest, it would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Art.22(1). e) On the failure to comply with the requirement of informing the grounds of arrest as soon as may be after the arrest, the arrest would stand vitiated. Once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second. f) If the police want to prove communication of the grounds of arrest only based on a diary entry, it is necessary to incorporate those grounds of arrest in the diary entry or any other document. The grounds of arrest must exist before the same are informed. g) When an arrestee pleads before a court that the grounds of arrest were not communicated, the burden to prove the compliance of Art.22(1) is on the police authorities. h) 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 may be rendered illegal.” 9. The above principles of law hold the field even now. 10. The above principles of law hold the field even now. 10. On 17.07.2025, this Court considered the rival contentions and prima facie found that the grounds for arrest have not been communicated as contemplated by law to the family members or relatives of the petitioner. Since the respondents requested for further detailed hearing, this Court granted an interim bail to the petitioner and posted this case for further consideration. Even after hearing the petitioner and the respondents at length, this Court is of the view that the grounds for arrest have not been communicated as contemplated by law, to any family member or relative as observed in Vihaan Kumar (supra) and Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra). Hence, this Court is satisfied that the grounds for arrest have not been communicated as contemplated by law. 11. In the decision in State of Karnataka v. Darshan [ 2025 INSC 979 ] the Supreme Court had observed that when examining procedural lapses, absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend. In this context, it needs to be mentioned that in Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra) the Supreme Court observed that the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds for arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement. It has further been observed that failure to communicate the grounds for arrest to the family members will render the arrest itself as illegal as that is also a mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The concept of demonstrable prejudice comes into play when only a procedural violation as in delay in communicating the ground for arrest arises. A reading of the judgment in State of Karnataka v. Darshan (supra), along with the order of the High Court will reveal that there was no contention that the grounds for arrest were not communicated and arguments were advanced on the ground that there was a delay in communicating the grounds for arrest. Thus the principle of demonstrable prejudice has no application in the present case. 12. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the grounds for arrest have not been communicated to the near relative of the petitioner as contemplated by law. 13. Thus the principle of demonstrable prejudice has no application in the present case. 12. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the grounds for arrest have not been communicated to the near relative of the petitioner as contemplated by law. 13. Even otherwise, it is evident that the petitioner was arrested on 27.06.2025 and the interim order of bail was granted on 17.07.2025. Petitioner had been in custody for 20 days before he was released on interim bail. The allegations revolve around evasion of GST. Taking into consideration the nature of offence alleged and also the materials available for completing the investigation, I am of the view that further detention of the petitioner is not warranted. The respondents could also not convince this Court about the need for any further detention of the petitioner. Hence, petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail on the said ground as well. 14. Accordingly, the interim bail granted to the petitioner on 17.07.2025 is made absolute. However, since appropriate conditions are required to be imposed, this bail application is allowed with the following modified conditions: (a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction. (b) Petitioner shall appear before the investigation officer as and when required and shall also co-operate with the trial of the case. (c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence. (d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail. (e) Petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the jurisdictional court. In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any modification or deletion of the conditions are required, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider such applications if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.