Sudhir Digal vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 933 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 933 Ker
Judgement Date : 14 July, 2025

Kerala High Court

Sudhir Digal vs State Of Kerala on 14 July, 2025

Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas

Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas

                                                        2025:KER:51796


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

   MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1947

                      BAIL APPL. NO. 7796 OF 2025

         CRIME    NO.662/2024       OF     THADIYITTAPARAMBA      POLICE

STATION, ERNAKULAM AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC NO.200 OF

2025 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - II,

NORTH   PARAVUR   /    I   ADDITIONAL    MACT/RENT   CONTROL   APPELLATE

AUTHORITY, NORTH PARAVUR.

PETITIONER:

           SUDHIR DIGAL,
           AGED 26 YEARS,
           S/O SHANKAR DIGAL, UDARA PANGA, PARAMPANGA,
           MAJAMAHA, KANDHAMAL, ODISHA, PIN - 762 109.

           BY ADV SMT.N.B.FATHIMA SULFATH


RESPONDENTS:

    1      STATE OF KERALA,
           REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
           HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.

    2      STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
           THADIYITTAPARAMBA POLICE STATION,
           ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 683 105.


           SRI. NOUSHAD K. A. (PP)
 Bail Appl. No.7796 of 2025

                                                         2025:KER:51796
                                      -2-

       THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.07.2025,       THE    COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 Bail Appl. No.7796 of 2025

                                                         2025:KER:51796
                                   -3-

                   BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
                  --------------------------------------
                   Bail Appl. No.7796 of 2025
                   ------------------------------------
               Dated this the 14th 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 fifth accused in Crime No.662 of 2024

of Thadiyittaparamba Police Station, Ernakulam, 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 15.08.2024, the

accused were found in possession of 70.120 Kg of Ganja in 38

separate packets and stored in different bags kept for the purpose of

sale and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner has been in custody since 15.08.2024. It was

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

2025:KER:51796

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 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

2025:KER:51796

NDPS Act and held that the grounds for arrest must be

communicated.

9. In the instant case, the learned Public Prosecutor

pointed out that, in the FIR and seizure mahazar, there are

references to the circumstances that the petitioner was informed of

the reason for his arrest. However, neither the arrest memo nor the

arrest intimation indicate any grounds for arrest. Except for the

provision of law under which the petitioner has been arrested, there

is nothing to indicate any grounds for arrest as having been

communicated. In such circumstances, the petitioner has not been

communicated the grounds for arrest as contemplated by law.

10. Petitioner has been in custody from 15.08.2024

onwards. Since the grounds for arrest was not communicated to the

petitioner as 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.