Libin vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 3364 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3364 Ker
Judgement Date : 12 August, 2025

Kerala High Court

Libin vs State Of Kerala on 12 August, 2025

Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas

Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas

                                                   2025:KER:60436


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

  TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1947

                    BAIL APPL. NO. 9206 OF 2025

       CRIME NO.25/2021 OF VARAPPUZHA EXCISE RANGE OFFICE,

ERNAKULAM AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC NO.753 OF 2022 OF I

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,

ERNAKULAM.

PETITIONER:

             LIBIN.,
             AGED 33 YEARS,
             S/O. ANTONY, KALATHIL HOUSE,
             KOOTTUKAD-VADAKKUMPURAM, CHENDAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
             PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
             PIN - 683 512.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
             SRI.VIVEK VENUGOPAL
             SRI.BABU JOSE
             SHRI.GAJENDRA SINGH RAJPUROHIT
             SHRI.AKHIL GEORGE
             SHRI.ATHUL POULOSE


RESPONDENT:

             STATE OF KERALA,
             REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,
             PIN - 682 031.

             SRI. NOUSHAD K. A. (PP)
 Bail Appl. No.9206 of 2025

                                                2025:KER:60436
                             -2-

       THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Bail Appl. No.9206 of 2025

                                                      2025:KER:60436
                                    -3-

                   BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
                  --------------------------------------
                   Bail Appl. No.9206 of 2025
                   ------------------------------------
             Dated this the 12th 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 first accused in Crime No.25 of 2021 of

Varappuzha Excise Range Office, Ernakulam, which is now pending

as S.C.No.753 of 2022 before the I Additional Sessions Court, North

Paravoor, registered for the offences punishable under sections 20(b)

(ii)(C), 29 and 60(3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').

3. According to the prosecution, on 30.12.2021, the accused

were found in possession of 2 Kg of ganja in a house bearing

No.XIII/329 and thereby committed the offences alleged. Petitioner

was arrested on 30.12.2021, and he has been in custody since then.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner has been in custody since 30.12.2021. It was submitted

that the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the petitioner

or his relatives at the time of his arrest.

2025:KER:60436

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

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

2025:KER:60436

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 arrest memo, which is produced as

Annexure 1, it is noticed that there is specific reference that the

petitioner was arrested for possession of ganja. However, in the

arrest notice, which is in a printed format, the entries

arrack/toddy/Indian Made Foreign Liquor/arishtam have all been

struck off and the term 'ganja' has not been struck off. This Court is

of the opinion that the same is vague and does not effectively

communicate the grounds for arrest to any of the near relative of the

accused. The requirement of communicating the grounds for arrest is

to intimate the relative that the accused has been arrested due to a

particular ground. Unless the grounds for arrest are clearly

discernible from the arrest notice, it remains in the realm of a vague

notice. In such circumstances, I am satisfied that relatives of the

petitioner have not been effectively communicated with the grounds

for arrest.

10. Petitioner has been in custody from 30.12.2021

onwards. Since the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the

petitioner soon after the arrest, petitioner is entitled to be released

on bail.

2025:KER:60436

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.