Kerala High Court
Alan K. Philip vs State Of Kerala on 6 August, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
BAIL APPL. NO. 9014 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:58645
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 9014 OF 2025
CRIME NO.976/2024 OF CHIRAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.04.2025 IN BAIL APPL.
NO.5572 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED :
ALAN K. PHILIP, AGED 25 YEARS
S/O. PHILIP, RESIDING AT KURTHARA,
PANACHAKUZHIYIL, KARIMPANAMKUZHI,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 645.
BY ADVS.
SRI.J.ABHILASH
SRI.VIMAL BHASKAR
SHRI.IRFAN KAMAL K.M.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
CHIRAYINKIL POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.
SRI.PRASANTH M.P., PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.08.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 9014 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:58645
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
B.A. No.9014 of 2025
...................................................
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner is the 6th accused in Crime No.976 of 2024 of Chirayinkil Police
Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for short, NDPS).
3. The prosecution case is that, accused were found in possession of 84.790
grams and 42.830 grams of MDMA, which was kept for sale and thereby
committed the offences alleged. The petitioner was arrested on
22.03.2025 and he has been in custody since then.
4. Heard Sri.Abhilash J., the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as
Sri.Prasanth M.P., the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has
been in custody since 22.03.2025. It was submitted that the grounds for
arrest were not communicated to the petitioner or his relatives at the
time of his arrest.
BAIL APPL. NO. 9014 OF 2025
2025:KER:58645
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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 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 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 the language which
he understands.
9. In a recent decision in Shahina vs. 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.
BAIL APPL. NO. 9014 OF 2025
2025:KER:58645
10. On a perusal of the case diary, it is noticed that, grounds for
arrest have not been communicated to the petitioner, either in the arrest
memo or in the intimation of arrest. Both records only specify the
provisions of law under which petitioner has been arrested, which is not
sufficient under law for an effective communication of the grounds for
arrest. In such circumstances, I am satisfied that the grounds for arrest
have not been communicated as contemplated by law.
11. Petitioner has been in custody from 22.03.2025 onwards.
Having regard to the above circumstances, I am satisfied that the
grounds for arrest have not been communicated to the petitioner as
required by law.
12. Accordingly, 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.
(e) Petitioner shall not leave the country without the permission of
the jurisdictional Court.
BAIL APPL. NO. 9014 OF 2025
2025:KER:58645
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
AMV/06/08/2025
BAIL APPL. NO. 9014 OF 2025
2025:KER:58645
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 9014/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME 976/2024
DATED 07.12.2024.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL APPLICATION
NO.5572/2025 DATED DATED 29.04.2025 BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN B.A. NO.6449/2025
DATED 23.06.2025.
