Kerala High Court
Deepak vs State Of Kerala on 13 August, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
B.A.No.9201 of 2025 1
2025:KER:61065
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 9201 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1075/2024 OF Kolathur Police Station, Malappuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.01.2025 IN Bail Appl.
NO.1078 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:
DEEPAK, AGED 28 YEARS
S/O. DIVAKARAN, DIJIBHAVAN, VADUVANCHAN, KALLERI
WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673593
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.SAMSUDIN
SHRI.JASNEED JAMAL
SMT.LIRA A.B.
SMT.DEVIKA E.D.
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
SRI. PRASANTH M.P., PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.9201 of 2025 2
2025:KER:61065
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
B.A.No.9201 of 2025
...................................................
Dated this the 13th 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 second accused in Crime No.1075 of
2024 of Kolathur Police Station, Malappuram, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [for brevity, 'NDPS
Act'].
3. According to the prosecution, on 08.11.2024, the
accused were found in possession of 74.470 grams of
Methamphetamine and thereby committed the offences alleged.
Petitioner was arrested on 08.11.2024 and he has been in custody
since then.
4. Heard Sri.Samsudin Panolan, the learned Counsel for
the petitioner as well as Sri.Prasanth M.P., the learned Public
Prosecutor.
2025:KER:61065
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner has been in custody since 08.11.2024. It was
submitted that the grounds for arrest were not communicated to
the petitioner or his relatives at the time of his arrest.
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 [AIR 2025 SC 1388], it has been held that
2025:KER:61065
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 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.
10. On a perusal of the case diary it is noticed that the
grounds for arrest have not been communicated to the petitioner
or his relatives. The arrest memo does not contain the grounds for
arrest. Similarly, the arrest intimation also, except for referring to
the provisions of law, does not indicate that the grounds for arrest
were communicated. In such circumstances, I am satisfied that
petitioner has not been communicated with the grounds for arrest
and hence, petitioner's arrest is vitiated.
2025:KER:61065
11. Petitioner has been in custody from 08.11.2024
onwards. Since the grounds for arrest were not communicated to
the petitioner soon after the arrest, petitioner is entitled to be
released on bail.
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.
(e) Petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without
the permission of the jurisdictional Court.
2025:KER:61065
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
sp/13/08/2025
2025:KER:61065
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 9201/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO.
1075/2024 OF THE KOLATHUR POLICE STATION.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19-06-2025
IN CRL MP 692/2025 OF BEFORE THE SPECIAL
COURT FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT & NDPS ACT
CASES, MANJERI.
