[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Ramesh.A vs Union Of India on 16 December, 2025
Crl.A.No.1765 of 2025
: 1 :-
2025:KER:96227
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA,
1947
CRL.A NO. 1765 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.08.2025 IN SC NO.4
OF 2021 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF NIA CASES,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
RAMESH.A,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O ARASARETHINAM,HOUSE NO 162/559,MANAMKUZHI
HOUSE, MADAMPITIYA ROAD,MODARA, COLOMBO., PIN - 15
BY ADV SRI.AJEESH M UMMER
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY,
KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY PROSECUTOR, NATIONAL
INVESTIGATION AGENCY,, PIN - 682020
BY ADV O.M.SHALINA, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF
INDIA
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.12.2025, THE COURT ON 16.12.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.A.No.1765 of 2025
: 2 :-
2025:KER:96227
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
&
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,JJ.
-------------------------------------
Crl. Appeal No. 1765 of 2025
---------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of December 2025
JUDGMENT
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J
This appeal is filed under Section 21 of the National
Investigation Act, 2008 by the 8 th accused in SC 4/2021/NIA on
the files of the Special Court for trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam,
challenging the order dated 27.08.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.118/2025,
dismissing his bail application.
2. The appellant/accused No.8 is alleged to have committed
the offences punishable under Section 120B r/w 125 of IPC,
Section 120B IPC, Sections 18,20,38,39 and 40 of Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 120B of IPC r/w Sections
7 and 25(1AA) of Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 8(c) r/w Section
21(c), 23(c), 24,27A,28 and 29 of NDPS Act.
3. The prosecution case is that on on 25.03.2021, a Sri
Lankan boat was found carrying 301 kgs of heroin, along with 5
AK- 56 rifles, and 1000 rounds of 9 MM ammunitions mostly made
from Pakistan, illegally without proper documents with six Sri
: 3 :-
2025:KER:96227
Lankan Nationals on board. It is their case that during
investigation, the role of the other accused, including the appellant
came into light and it is alleged that the appellant is a key
conspirator, who had maintained a close contact with accused Nos.
6 and 9 and two approvers by name Soundarajan and Ahamed
Fasly. It is also alleged that they together have facilitated drug
trafficking and fund transfers from Sri Lanka to India, through
hawala channels for revival of LTTE activities. Accordingly, the
appellant was arrested by the investigating agency on 07.09.2021
and prosecuted.
4. The NIA, after investigation filed a final report in this case
on 15.12.2021 and the Special Court for trial of NIA Cases, took
cognizance of the offences and proceeded with the case and
framed charges against all the accused, including the appellant. It
is during the pendency of SC No.4/2021, the appellant filed
Crl.M.P.No.118/2025 seeking regular bail.
5. The trial court, after considering the materials on record
and hearing both sides, dismissed the Crl.M.P.No.118/2025 on
27.08.2025. It is aggrieved by the said dismissal, the appellant
has preferred this appeal.
6. Heard Adv.Ajeesh.M.Ummer, the learned counsel
: 4 :-
2025:KER:96227
appearing for the appellant and Adv.O.M.Shalina, the learned DSGI
appearing for the respondent.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant raised only one
contention in this appeal. He submitted that the grounds of arrest
have not been informed to the appellant and that the same was
also not intimated to his wife or any of his relatives/friends. He, by
relying on paragraph 15 of the objection filed by the respondent,
contended that what has been informed to the appellant is only the
reasons for his arrest and not the grounds of arrest. He also relied
on the decision of the Apex Court in Vihaan Kumar v. State of
Haryana (2025 KHC OnLine 6116), to contend that
communication of the grounds of arrest, not only to the arrested
person but also to his friends/relatives is a requirement, to make
the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India meaningful
and effective, failing which such arrest will be rendered illegal.
8. Per contra, the learned DSGI opposed the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the appellant and contended that
the grounds of arrest have been communicated to the appellant in
the language known to him and that he has acknowledged the
same in the arrest memo. She further submitted that arrest and its
grounds were also intimated to the wife of the appellant, apart
: 5 :-
2025:KER:96227
from his friends, and the records would substantiate the same. She
also argued that the offences alleged against the appellant are
very grave in nature and, since charges have already been framed
and trial is to commence on 02.02.2026, bail may not be granted
to the appellant.
9. On an anxious consideration of the rival submissions and
the materials on record, we find no merit in the submissions made
by the learned counsel for the appellant. The arrest in the instant
case is much before the decision of the Apex Court in Pankaj
Bansal v. Union of India [2024 (7) SCC 576] and Vihaan Kumar's
case (cited supra). A perusal of paragraph 15 of the objection
would show that the respondent has specifically contended that
the grounds of arrest have been communicated to the appellant in
the language understood by him. It is to be seen that the arrest
memo of the appellant prepared at the time of his arrest on
7.9.2021 also confirms the same and shows that the grounds of
arrest have been explained in Tamil language to the appellant and
that he has acknowledged the same. That apart, the arrest memo
would show that the arrest was also informed to the wife of the
appellant, Smt.Nona Pirosha through her mobile phone. Further
the statement of the witnesses to the arrest memo also confirms
: 6 :-
2025:KER:96227
the fact that the arrest intimation has been conveyed to them and
also to the wife of the appellant. If so, the contention of the
learned counsel for the appellant that the grounds of arrest have
not been informed to the appellant and the arrest has not been
intimated to the wife of the appellant does not hold water. Since,
the decisions relied upon operates only prospectively, non
furnishing of grounds of arrest to the wife of the appellant is not a
ground to term the arrest illegal.
10. Be that as it may, the materials on record would go to
show that the allegations levelled against the appellant are very
serious in nature. It is very pertinent to note that on an earlier
occasion, when the appellant moved this Court for bail by filing
Criminal Appeal No. 623/2022, this Court has found that there is
prima facie truth in accusation against the appellant. The records
prima facie show that the appellant and the other accused are
cadres of the LTTE and they have conducted secret meetings and
conspired to carry out illegal activities of trafficking drugs, arms
and ammunitions with intention of raising funds to revive the LTTE.
It also shows that for that purpose, substantial amount has been
transferred through hawala channel for procurement of drugs and
weapons, which when attempted to be brought in India, was
: 7 :-
2025:KER:96227
seized by the agencies in India. That apart, it is to be taken note
that the trial court has already framed charges against the
appellant and the other accused and it has scheduled the trial to
commence from 02.02.2026. Moreover, the appellant is a Sri
Lankan National and on an earlier occasion, has been arrested for
staying in India unauthorisedly for a considerable long period.
Therefore, considering all the afore facts and circumstances, we
are of the view that no interference is required with the impugned
order passed by the trial court, denying bail to the appellant.
Ergo, we find no merit in this Criminal Appeal and the same
is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
Judge
Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN
Judge
dpk
