Kerala High Court
Sudhir Digal vs State Of Kerala on 14 July, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2025:KER:51796
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 7796 OF 2025
CRIME NO.662/2024 OF THADIYITTAPARAMBA POLICE
STATION, ERNAKULAM AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC NO.200 OF
2025 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - II,
NORTH PARAVUR / I ADDITIONAL MACT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE
AUTHORITY, NORTH PARAVUR.
PETITIONER:
SUDHIR DIGAL,
AGED 26 YEARS,
S/O SHANKAR DIGAL, UDARA PANGA, PARAMPANGA,
MAJAMAHA, KANDHAMAL, ODISHA, PIN - 762 109.
BY ADV SMT.N.B.FATHIMA SULFATH
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
THADIYITTAPARAMBA POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 683 105.
SRI. NOUSHAD K. A. (PP)
Bail Appl. No.7796 of 2025
2025:KER:51796
-2-
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl. No.7796 of 2025
2025:KER:51796
-3-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------------
Bail Appl. No.7796 of 2025
------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of July, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner is the fifth accused in Crime No.662 of 2024 of Thadiyittaparamba Police Station, Ernakulam, registered for the offences punishable under sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').
3. According to the prosecution, on 15.08.2024, the accused were found in possession of 70.120 Kg of Ganja in 38 separate packets and stored in different bags kept for the purpose of sale and thereby committed the offences alleged.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 15.08.2024. It was submitted that the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the petitioner or his relatives at the time of his arrest.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail Bail Appl. No.7796 of 2025 2025:KER:51796 -4- application and submitted that the grounds for arrest were communicated to the petitioner at the time of his arrest. It was also submitted that since the contraband seized from the petitioner was a commercial quantity, the rigour under Section 37 of NDPS Act will apply and hence petitioner ought not to be released on bail.
6. Though prima facie there are materials on record to connect the petitioner with the crime, since petitioner has raised the question of absence of communication of the grounds for his arrest, this Court is obliged to consider the said issue.
7. 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 [2025 SCC Online SC 269], 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 confuting the grounds imparted and communicate to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands.
8. In a recent decision in Shahina v. State of Kerala (2025 KHC Online 706), this Court has also considered the impact of the aforesaid principles in relation to offences alleged under the Bail Appl. No.7796 of 2025 2025:KER:51796 -5- NDPS Act and held that the grounds for arrest must be communicated.
9. In the instant case, the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that, in the FIR and seizure mahazar, there are references to the circumstances that the petitioner was informed of the reason for his arrest. However, neither the arrest memo nor the arrest intimation indicate any grounds for arrest. Except for the provision of law under which the petitioner has been arrested, there is nothing to indicate any grounds for arrest as having been communicated. In such circumstances, the petitioner has not been communicated the grounds for arrest as contemplated by law.
10. Petitioner has been in custody from 15.08.2024 onwards. Since the grounds for arrest was not communicated to the petitioner as soon after the arrest, petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.
In the result, this application is allowed on the following 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 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 Bail Appl. No.7796 of 2025 2025:KER:51796 -6- 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.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE ADS Bail Appl. No.7796 of 2025 2025:KER:51796 -7- APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 7796/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF ARREST MEMO DATED 15.08.2024.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF CUSTODY MEMO ADTED 16.08.2024.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF INSPECTION MEMO DATED 15.08.2024.