Arun Selvan vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 1719 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1719 Ker
Judgement Date : 30 July, 2025

Kerala High Court

Arun Selvan vs State Of Kerala on 30 July, 2025

Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas

Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas

BAIL APPL. NO. 8714 OF 2025

                                       1




                                                            2025:KER:56557



                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

       WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1947

                          BAIL APPL. NO. 8714 OF 2025

         CRIME NO.376/2024 OF MARADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

          AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 03.03.2025 IN Bail Appl.

                  NO.6599 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1:

              ARUN SELVAN
              AGED 30 YEARS
              S/O. SELVAN, SHANMUKHAVILASAM, NADAMA,
              ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 682301.


              BY ADV SRI.VIVEK VENUGOPAL


RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

              STATE OF KERALA
              REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
              HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
              KOCHI., PIN - 682031.

              BY SRI. NOUSHAD K. A., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.07.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 8714 OF 2025

                                              2




                                                                               2025:KER:56557



                           BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
                     ......................................................
                               B.A. No.8714 of 2025
                       ...................................................
                     Dated this the 30th day of July, 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.376 of 2024 of Maradu Police

Station, Ernakulam, registered for the offences punishable under Sections

22(c), 20(b)(ii)(A) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act') and Section 6(b) r/w

Section 24 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of

Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production,

Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003.

3. According to the prosecution, on 02.03.2024, the accused were found in

possession and transporting 180 grams of MDMA in a car bearing

registration No.KL-07/CA-4056 and thereby the accused committed the

offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested on 02.03.2024 and he has been

in custody since then.

4. Heard Sri.Vivek Venugopal, 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 the petitioner has BAIL APPL. NO. 8714 OF 2025

2025:KER:56557

been in custody since 02.03.2024. 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 and

Another [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.

9. In a recent decision in Shahina vs. State of Kerala [2025 KHC OnLine BAIL APPL. NO. 8714 OF 2025

2025:KER:56557

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, though the

petitioner was arrested on 02.03.2024, there is nothing to indicate that

he was informed of the grounds for his arrest. Even in respect of the

arrest intimation, except for a reference to the provisions of law, there is

nothing to indicate that the grounds for his arrest were communicated to

him.

11. Petitioner has been in custody from 02.03.2024 onwards.

Having regard to the above circumstances, I am satisfied that the

grounds for arrest have not been communicated to the petitioner as

required by law.

12. Accordingly, 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.