Kerala High Court
Bala Subramanian @ Kumaran vs State Of Kerala on 29 July, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
BAIL APPL. NO. 8744 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:56135
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 8744 OF 2025
CRIME NO.14/2024 OF PARAPPANANGADI EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, MALAPPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.06.2024 IN Bail Appl.
NO.4037 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS. 1&2 (IN CUSTODY FROM 2.3.2024):
1 BALA SUBRAMANIAN @ KUMARAN
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O KARUPPAN, KOTTAMPOTTA HOUSE,
ERUMAYOOR-I VILLAGE, ALATHUR,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678541.
2 ABDUL MANAF
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O SULAIMAN, MADEENA MANZIL,
ERUMAYOOR-I VILLAGE, ALATHUR,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678541.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH
SRI.LIBIN STANLEY
SMT.SAIPOOJA
SRI.SADIK ISMAYIL
SMT.R.GAYATHRI
SRI.M.MAHIN HAMZA
SHRI.ALWIN JOSEPH
SHRI.BENSON AMBROSE
BAIL APPL. NO. 8744 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:56135
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682031.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PARAPPANANGADI EXCISE RANGE OFFICE,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676303.
BY SRI. NOUSHAD K. A., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.07.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 8744 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:56135
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
B.A. No.8744 of 2025
...................................................
Dated this the 29th day of July, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.14 of 2024 of
Parappanangadi Excise Range Office, Malappuram, registered for the
offences punishable under sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').
3. According to the prosecution, on 01.03.2024, petitioners were found in
possession of 105.33 Kg of Ganja and thereby committed the offences
alleged. Petitioners were arrested on 02.03.2024 and they have been in
custody since then.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners
have been in custody since 02.03.2024. It was submitted that the
grounds for arrest were not communicated to the petitioners or their
relatives at the time of their arrest.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted
that the grounds for arrest were communicated to the petitioners at the
BAIL APPL. NO. 8744 OF 2025
2025:KER:56135
time of their arrest. It was also submitted that since the contraband
seized from the petitioners was a commercial quantity, the rigour under
Section 37 of NDPS Act will apply and hence petitioners ought not to be
released on bail.
6. Though prima facie there are materials on record to connect the
petitioners with the crime, since petitioners have raised the question of
absence of communication of the grounds for his arrest, this Court is
obliged to consider the said issue.
7. 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 [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 information of the grounds for arrest must be provided
to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the
basic facts confuting the grounds imparted and communicate to the
arrested person effectively in the language which he understands.
8. 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.
9. On a perusal of the arrest memo issued to both petitioners at the time of
arrest, it is noticed that, specific grounds for arrest are mentioned in the
BAIL APPL. NO. 8744 OF 2025
2025:KER:56135
memo, which contains the signatures and fingerprints of both accused.
Further, in the arrest notice served to the son of the first petitioner and
wife of the second petitioner, there are specific references to the grounds
for their arrest. Having regard to the circumstances, as revealed from the
documents handed over by the learned Public Prosecutor, I am satisfied
that there was effective communication of the grounds for arrest of the
petitioners.
In view of the above, since the arrest of the petitioners has been
effectively communicated as contemplated by law, petitioners are not
entitled to be released on bail. Hence, this bail application is dismissed.
sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
AMV/30/07/2025
BAIL APPL. NO. 8744 OF 2025
2025:KER:56135
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 8744/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.6.2024 IN
BAIL APPL. 4037/2024 ON HIGH COURT.
ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE OCCURRENCE REPORT IN NDPS
CRIME NO. 14 OF 2024 OF PARAPPANANGADI EXCISE
RANGE OFFICE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
