Kerala High Court
Raashi Sanjay Tripathi vs Narcotics Control Bureau on 14 August, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025/23RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 920 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
RAASHI SANJAY TRIPATHI, AGED 21 YEARS
D/O SANJAY TRIPATHI, B/28, JANATA COLONY,
SHUKLA CHAWL, GANDHI NAGAR, JOGESHWARI EAST,
MUMBAI, PIN - 400060
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.DHEERAJ RAJAN
SHRI.ANAND KALYANAKRISHNAN
SHRI.LIBIN VARGHESE
SHRI.SOORAJ KRISHNAN K.V.
RESPONDENTS:
1 NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU
REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR, NARCOTICS CONTROL
BUREAU, COCHIN ZONAL UNIT,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682037
2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISON
VIYYUR CENTRAL PRISON, THRISSUR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 678010
BY ADVS.
SHRI.R.VINU RAJ, SPL. P. P. NARCOTICS CONTROL
BUREAU
SRI. K.A. ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.08.2025, THE COURT ON 14.08.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.920/2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:61178
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian J.
This is a writ petition instituted seeking a writ of habeas corpus
directing the respondent to produce the mother of the petitioner who
is under judicial custody in connection with O.R. No.1/2025 of NCB,
Cochin zone, a case registered alleging commission of offences
punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) r/w 8(c) and 29 of Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.
2. The relevant facts, as borne out from the pleadings of the
parties and the files, are the following:
The petitioner's mother, namely Shweta Narendra Shukla, is
arrayed as the accused in O.R. No.1/2025 of NCB, Cochin zone. The
allegation in the said case is that on 25.01.2025, at 9.30 a.m., the
accused was found possessing 4.156 kg of charass for the purpose of
sale, in room No.302 of a hotel named "Sand Residency" located at
Kaloor, Ernakulam, in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act,
1985. After the detection of the case, the accused was arrested and
produced before the Magistrate, who in turn had remanded her to
judicial custody. According to the writ petitioner, the learned
Magistrate remanded the accused in a casual and mechanical manner
without verifying whether the constitutional safeguards and other
provisions governing the procedures of arrest were duly complied
with.
WP(Crl.) No.920/2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:61178
3. According to the writ petitioner, the requirement under
Article 22(1) of the Constitution, that the grounds of arrest must be
communicated to the arrestee, has not been complied with in this
case. Furthermore, the writ petitioner contends that the arrestee was
not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of her arrest,
thereby constituting a gross violation of the constitutional mandate
contained under Article 22(2) of the Indian Constitution. Hence, it is
submitted that both the arrest and the consequent remand are illegal,
and the accused is entitled to be set at liberty forthwith.
4. Before delving into the question of alleged non-
compliance with the procedures of arrest, it must be borne in mind
that the right of personal liberty is a basic human right recognised
and guaranteed as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution. The detention of any person without legal sanction is an
infringement of this fundamental right. Consequently, the arrest of a
person can be effected only in strict accordance with the procedure
established by law.
5. The right of the arrestee to be informed of his grounds of
arrest is envisaged under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. It
provides:
"No person who is arrested shall be detained in
custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the
grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to
consent and to defended by, a legal practitioner of his
choice."
WP(Crl.) No.920/2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:61178
Likewise, Section 47(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
(BNSS) also mandates that every Police Officer arresting a person
without a warrant must forthwith communicate to him the full
particulars of the offence or other grounds of such arrest. Through a
catena of decisions, it has been clarified that communicating the
grounds of arrest serves multiple specific purposes. The Supreme
Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and others [(2024) 7 SCC
576] held that the accused has a constitutional and statutory right to
be informed of the grounds for arrest in writing. The court further
explained that this constitutional mandate is intended not only to
apprise the arrested person of why he/she is being arrested but also to
enable such person to seek legal counsel and thereafter to present a
case effectively before a court while seeking bail.
6. Later, the Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha v. State
(NCT of Delhi [2008 SCC 284] held that "the right to be informed
about the grounds of arrest flows from Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of Indian and any infringement of this fundamental right
would vitiate the process of arrest and remand. Moreover, the mere
fact that a charge sheet has been filed in the matter would not
validate the illegality and the unconstitutionality committed at the
time of arresting the accused and the grant of initial police custody,
and the remand of the accused".
7. More recently, in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana [AIR
2025 SC 1388], the Supreme Court held that the requirement of
WP(Crl.) No.920/2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:61178
informing the person arrested of the grounds for arrest is not a
formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement. In the said
decision, the Court asserted that where an allegation is made that the
grounds of arrest were not communicated to the arrestee, the entire
burden is on the arresting agency to satisfy the court that there was
effective compliance with the requirement of Article 22(1). However,
after considering the decisions in Pankaj Bansal (supra) and Prabir
Purkayastha (supra), the Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar (supra)
clarified that communicating the grounds for arrest need not be in
writing, though doing so would be advisable. In essence, it is a
constitutional as well as statutory right of an arrestee to be informed
of the grounds of arrest as soon as may be.
8. While reverting to the case at hand, it can be seen that
the accused was arrested on the allegation that she was found in
possession of a commercial quantity of "charas" in contravention of
provisions contained in the NDPS Act. She was allegedly caught red-
handed with the contraband from inside the room of a hotel. A
perusal of the arrest memo, which finds a place in the case diary,
reveals that the grounds of arrest were communicated to her. In the
arrest memo, an endorsement is seen made by the arrestee herself
that she understood the reason for her arrest. Moreover, a signature,
purportedly that of the arrestee, appears beneath the said
endorsement. Therefore, we are of the view that the arrestee was
duly informed of the grounds of her arrest. At any rate, nothing has
been brought to our notice that would suggest otherwise. Similarly, a
WP(Crl.) No.920/2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:61178
perusal of the records also reveals that the intimation regarding the
arrest of the accused was given to the mother of the arrestee, named
Nirmala Narendra Shukla. Hence, the contention of the writ
petitioner that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the
arrestee is without merit and cannot be sustained.
9. Another contention pressed into service in the writ
petition is that the accused was not produced before the court within
24 hours of her arrest. While considering this contention, it is to be
noted that the right of an arrestee to be produced before a Magistrate
within the stipulated time is also a constitutionally guaranteed right as
well as a statutory right. Article 22(2) of the constitution mandates
that every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be
produced before the nearest Magistrate within a period of 24 hours of
such arrest, excluding the time necessary for the journey from the
place of arrest to the court of Magistrate. Likewise, Section 58 of
BNSS reinforces the above constitutional provision, emphasising that
an arrested person should be produced before a Magistrate without
unnecessary delay and in no case beyond 24 hours of the arrest. The
object behind these provisions is to ensure that the individuals are not
held in custody indefinitely without judicial oversight or scrutiny. A
detention beyond 24 hours of arrest can only be upon an order of a
Magistrate.
10. In the writ petition, it is contended that the constitutional
mandate contained under Article 22(2) has not been complied with in
WP(Crl.) No.920/2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:61178
this case, as the accused was produced before the Magistrate beyond
24 hours of her arrest. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that though the case was detected on 25.01.2025, the
arrest of the accused was recorded at 2.30 p.m. on 26.01.2025.
According to the Prosecutor, thereafter the accused was brought
before the learned Magistrate at 11.05 p.m. on 26.01.2025, well
within 24 hours of her arrest. While considering the rival contentions,
it is to be noted that, as rightly pointed out by the learned Public
Prosecutor, in the arrest memo, the date and time of arrest is shown
as 26.01.2025 at 2.30 p.m. But quite contrary to the same, in the
crime and occurrence report, the date and time of arrest is shown as
25.01.2025 at 3.45 p.m. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that it
is a case in which the accused was caught red-handed with the
contraband. The preparation of the seizure mahazar was completed
by 3.30 p.m. on 25.01.2025, and the accused was present at the time
of detection of this case and during the preparation of the seizure
mahazar. Naturally, the accused would have been apprehended
immediately upon the NCB officials being satisfied that a cognizable
offence had been committed by her. Therefore, we find no reason to
doubt the entry contained in the crime and occurrence report
regarding the date and time of the arrest of the accused, as on
25.01.2025 at 3.45 p.m. As already stated, the accused was produced
before the Magistrate only on 26.01.2025 at 11.05 p.m. Hence, it is
demonstrably clear that the accused was produced before the
Magistrate after 24 hours of her arrest in violation of the
constitutional mandate contained under Section 22(2) of the
WP(Crl.) No.920/2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:61178
Constitution. Consequently, the arrest and remand of the accused in
connection with O.R. No.1/2025 dated 26.01.2025 stands vitiated and
is liable to be interfered with.
In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the mother of the
petitioner, who was arrayed as the accused in O.R. No.1/2025, shall be
forthwith released and set at liberty, if her detention is not required in
connection with any other case. Needless to say, the fact that the
remand of the accused is vitiated will not vitiate the investigation,
charge sheet/complaint, and the trial. We further direct that the
accused shall execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only)
with two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial
court within a period of two weeks from the date of her release from
jail. Moreover, the accused shall appear before the court as and when
directed.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ncd
WP(Crl.) No.920/2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:61178
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 920/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OCCURRENCE
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED
25/01/2025 PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND
APPLICATION DATED 26/01/2025
SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
11.07.2025 IN B.A 7311/2025 PASSED BY
THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST MEMO
DATED 26/01/2025
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1 Arrest Memo dated 26-01-25
Exhibit R2 Seizure Mahazar dated 25-01-25
Exhibit R3 Section 67 Summons issued to Accused
Exhibit R4 Section 67 Voluntary statement of the
accused recorded by enquiry officer
dated 25-01-25 and 26-01-25
Exhibit R5 Arrest Intimation dated 29-01-25
Exhibit R6 Communication given to KELSA about
arrest intimation dated 26-01-25
