Kerala High Court
Anoop Varghese vs State Of Kerala on 6 October, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
B.A.No.11952 of 2025 1
2025:KER:73191
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 14TH ASWINA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 11952 OF 2025
CRIME NO.804/2024 OF Kumily Police Station, Idukki
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 15.09.2025 IN Bail Appl.
NO.11599 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ARISING OUT OF THE
ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC (NDPS) NO.6 OF 2025 OF SPECIAL
COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), THODUPUZHA
PETITIONER/S:
ANOOP VARGHESE, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O VARKY, CHEMBANAL
HOUSE, KUMILY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685509
[NAME OF PETITIONER IS CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED
24.09.2025 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1 OF 2025]
BY ADV SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER OF KUMILY POLICE STATION
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 685509
SRI. NOUSHAD K. A. (PP)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.11952 of 2025 2
2025:KER:73191
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
B.A.No.11952 of 2025
...................................................
Dated this the 6th day of October, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.804 of 2024 of Kumily Police Station, Idukki, registered for the offences punishable under sections 22(c), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').
3. According to the prosecution, on 14.09.2024, the accused was found in possession of 60 grams of MDMA while transporting the same in a vehicle bearing No.KL-37-F-6785 and thereby committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested on 14.09.2024, and he has been in custody since then. During chemical analysis, it was found that the contraband was methamphetamine and not MDMA.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 14.09.2024. It was B.A.No.11952 of 2025 3 2025:KER:73191 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 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 of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) and also that the said B.A.No.11952 of 2025 4 2025:KER:73191 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 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 NDPS Act and held that the grounds for arrest must be communicated.
9. On a perusal of the case diary, it is noticed that the arrest memo does not contain any grounds for arrest. Similarly, in the arrest intimation also, there is nothing to indicate that the grounds for arrest were communicated.
10. Having regard to the above circumstances, I am satisfied that the petitioner has not been communicated with the grounds for arrest as contemplated by law. Petitioner has been in custody from 14.09.2024 onwards. Since the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the petitioner soon after the arrest, petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. B.A.No.11952 of 2025 5
2025:KER:73191 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 evidence.
(d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.
(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 B.A.No.11952 of 2025 6 2025:KER:73191 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 sp/06/10/2025 B.A.No.11952 of 2025 7 2025:KER:73191 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 11952/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.03.2025 IN CRL.M.C.NO. 48/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR NDPSACT CASES, THODUPUZHA Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST MEMO DATED 14.09.2024