Kerala High Court
Muhammed Shamnad vs State Of Kerala on 23 August, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
B.A.No.9725 of 2025 1
2025:KER:64343
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
SATURDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 1ST BHADRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 9725 OF 2025
CRIME NO.390/2025 OF Payyannur Police Station, Kannur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 11.07.2025 IN CRMP
NO.1208 OF 2025 OF SPECIAL COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), VADAKARA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
MUHAMMED SHAMNAD
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O. MOIDEEN KOYA, MEROON VILLA, ATHOLI,
KONGANNUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673315
BY ADV SRI.P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
SRI. NOUSHAD K. A. (PP)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.9725 of 2025 2
2025:KER:64343
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
B.A.No.9725 of 2025
...................................................
Dated this the 23rd 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.390 of 2024
of Payyannur Police Station, Kannur, registered for the offences
punishable under Section 22(c) r/w Section 29 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [for brevity, 'NDPS
Act'].
3. According to the prosecution, on 27.03.2025, the
accused were found in possession of 166.68 grams of MDMA and
thereby committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested
on 27.03.2025 and he has been in custody since then.
4. Heard Adv.P.C.Muhammed Noushiq, the learned
Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned
Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
2025:KER:64343
the petitioner has been in custody since 27.03.2025. 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.
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
2025:KER:64343
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 there
is no reference in the arrest memo regarding any grounds for
arrest as having been communicated to the petitioner. Even in the
arrest intimation also, there is no reference to the grounds for
arrest. In view of the failure to provide intimation of arrest to the
relatives of the petitioner or the grounds for arrest, I am satisfied
that petitioner has not been communicated with the grounds for
arrest. In such circumstances, petitioner's arrest is vitiated.
11. Petitioner has been in custody from 27.03.2025
2025:KER:64343
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:64343
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/23/08/2025
2025:KER:64343
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 9725/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2025
IN CRL.M.P. NO. 1208 OF 2025 ON THE FILES
OF SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS ACT CASES),
VATAKARA
