Kerala High Court
Nafid A.K vs State Of Kerala on 13 August, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2025:KER:61076
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. 9249 OF 2025
CRIME NO.190/2025 OF KARIPUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.07.2025 IN B.A.NO.8098 OF 2025
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
NAFID A.K., AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. ABBAS.A.K,
KOTTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEDIYIRUPPU, CHIRAYIL POST,
ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676121
BY ADV SRI.P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
SMT. SREEJA V. - 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.9249 of 2025 2
2025:KER:61076
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
B.A.No.9249 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.190 of 2025
of Karipur Police Station, Malappuram, registered for the offences
punishable under Section 23(C) r/w Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [for brevity, 'NDPS Act'].
3. According to the prosecution, on 26.04.2025, the
accused were found in possession of 1598.47 grams of MDMA from
the house belonging to the first accused and the other accused had
conspired and procured the contraband from out of the country and
thereby the accused committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was
arrested on 26.04.2025 and he has been in custody since then.
2025:KER:61076
4. Heard Adv.P.C.Muhammed Noushiq, 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 26.04.2025. 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. It was
further submitted that the investigation is still continuing and the
final report has not been filed and also that petitioner himself had
surrendered before the Police Station, pursuant to which he was
2025:KER:61076
arrested.
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 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:KER:61076
[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 there is
no effective communication of the grounds for arrest to the
petitioner or his relatives. The arrest memo does not contain any
reference to the grounds for arrest, except for mentioning the
provisions of law. Similarly, in the arrest intimation also, there is no
reference to the grounds for arrest. In view of the failure to provide
the grounds for arrest to the petitioners and his relatives, I am
satisfied that petitioner has not been communicated with the
grounds for arrest. In such circumstances, petitioner's arrest is
vitiated.
11. Though the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that
the investigation is still continuing and the final report has not been
2025:KER:61076
filed and also that petitioner himself had surrendered before the
Police Station, pursuant to which he was arrested, still there is an
obligation to provide the grounds for arrest to the petitioner as
contemplated by law. Since the investigation is still continuing, I am
of the view that petitioner can be directed to be released forthwith.
Accordingly, the Superintendent of Kannur Jail, wherein the
petitioner is lodged, should release him forthwith.
The bail application is disposed of.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
sp/13/08/2025
2025:KER:61076
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 9249/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2025
IN CRL.M.P. NO. 597 OF 2025 ON THE FILES
OF SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT &
NDPS ACT CASES, MANJERI
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.07.2025
IN BA NO. 8098 OF 2025 ON THE FILES OF
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST MEMO, INSPECTION
MEMO AND ARREST INTIMATION IN CRIME
NO.190 OF 2025 OF KARIPUR POIICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
