Kerala High Court
Lijo vs State Of Kerala on 30 July, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bail Appl. No.8610 of 2025
2025:KER:56376
-1-
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. 8610 OF 2025
CRIME NO.460/2024 OF POOVAR POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC
NO.2378 OF 2024 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PETITIONER:
LIJO,
AGED 35 YEARS,
S/O LEONS, R/AT LIJO HOUSE,
ST. SEBASTIAN LANE, PALLITHURA,
ATTIPRA VILLAGE. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA, PIN - 695 586.
BY ADV SHRI.P.RAKESH THAMBAN
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
SMT.SREEJA V., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl. No.8610 of 2025
2025:KER:56376
-2-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------------
Bail Appl. No.8610 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 second accused in Crime No.460 of
2024 of Poovar Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, which is now
pending as S.C.No.2378 of 2024 on the files of the Additional
Sessions Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram, registered for the offences
punishable under sections 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').
3. According to the prosecution, on 30.05.2024, the first
accused was found in possession 27.49 grams of MDMA inside his
jacket worn by him and 40.09 grams of MDMA was recovered from
the seat cover of a vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL-19-G-5196 in which
all the accused were travelling and thereby committed the offences
alleged. On chemical analysis, the said contraband was revealed to
be Methamphetamine.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner has been in custody since 31.05.2024. It was
2025:KER:56376
submitted that the grounds for arrest were not communicated to
the petitioner or his relatives at the time of his arrest.
5. 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.
6. 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.
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 of arrest is a
mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) and also that the
information of the grounds of 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.
2025:KER:56376
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 case diary, it is noticed that the
arrest memo indicating the arrest of the petitioner does not refer to
any grounds for arrest. The arrest intimation also does not indicate
that petitioner's relative was communicated about the grounds for
arrest. In the absence of any material to indicate that the grounds
for arrest have been communicated to the petitioner as
contemplated by law, I am of the view that the petitioner ought to
be released on bail.
10. Petitioner has been in custody from 31.05.2024
onwards. Since the grounds for arrest were not communicated to
the petitioner soon after his 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.
2025:KER:56376
(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.
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
ADS
2025:KER:56376
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 8610/2025
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.460/2024 OF POOVAR POLICE STATION
DATED 31.05.2024.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIS IN CRIME
NO.460/2024 OF POOVAR POLICE STATION
DATED 31.05.2024.
Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DISMISSAL ORDER IN
CRL.MP.NO.1996/2025 DATED 31.05.2025.
