Kerala High Court
Salman P. Salim vs State Of Kerala on 13 August, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
BAIL APPL. NO. 9240 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:60793
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. 9240 OF 2025
CRIME NO.422/2025 OF KODAKARA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 11.06.2025 IN Bail Appl.
NO.7267 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.3:
SALMAN P. SALIM
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O SALIM, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, FATHIMAPURAM,
IROPPA DESOM, PERUNNA VILLAGE, PERUNNA P.O.,
CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686102.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY
SMT.DIVYADEVI V.G.
SMT.ANGEL GYLES LIKE
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031.
BY SMT. SREEJA V, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.08.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 9240 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:60793
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
B.A. No.9240 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 3rd accused in Crime No.422/2025 of Kodakara Police
Station, Thrissur; registered for the offences punishable under Sections
22(c), 27 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 (for short, NDPS).
3. The prosecution case is that, on 03.05.2025 accused Nos.1 & 2 were
found in possession of 184.420 grams of MDMA. During interrogation, it
was revealed that they had brought the contraband from Bangalore at
the request and with the financial support of the petitioner, and thereby
the accused committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested on
11.05.2025 and he has been in custody since then.
4. Heard Sri.M.P.Madhavankutty, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as
well as Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has
been in custody since 11.05.2025. It was submitted that the grounds for
BAIL APPL. NO. 9240 OF 2025
2025:KER:60793
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. It was further submitted that the investigation in the case has
not yet been completed and that the petitioner was arrested only on
11.05.2025.
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
BAIL APPL. NO. 9240 OF 2025
2025:KER:60793
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.
10. On a perusal of the case diary, it is noticed that, the specific
grounds for arrest of the petitioner has been given to him on 11.05.2025.
However, in the arrest memo except for referring to the provisions of
law, there is no mention of any grounds for arrest as having been
communicated to the petitioner. In such circumstances, I am satisfied
that the grounds for arrest have not been communicated as mandated by
law.
11. Since the investigation has not yet been completed, it is the
petitioner has to be released forthwith. Accordingly, the Superintendent
of Special Sub Jail, Irinjalkuda; is hereby directed to release the petitioner
forthwith.
This application is disposed of as above.
sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
AMV/13/08/2025
BAIL APPL. NO. 9240 OF 2025
2025:KER:60793
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 9240/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE-I A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT.
ANNEXURE-II A TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT.
ANNEXURE-III A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN B.A. NO.
7267/2025 DATED 11-06-2025 BEFORE THIS
HON'BLE HIGH COURT.
