Adarsh vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 935 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 935 Ker
Judgement Date : 14 July, 2025

Kerala High Court

Adarsh vs State Of Kerala on 14 July, 2025

Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas

Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas

                                                                2025:KER:51626


             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. 8085 OF 2025

          CRIME     NO.915/2024       OF     VELLARADA        POLICE   STATION,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM          AGAINST        THE      ORDER/JUDGMENT          DATED

03.03.2025 IN BAIL APPL. NO.2762 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF

KERALA.

PETITIONER:

            ADARSH,
            AGED 47 YEARS,
            S/O SASIDHARAN, GOWRI NANDHANAM, VENJARAMOODU,
            KUTTIMOODU, THIRUANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 607.


            BY ADVS.
            SRI.M.VIVEK
            SMT.RENEETA VINU
            SHRI.M.R.MADHU


RESPONDENT:

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

            SRI. NOUSHAD K. A. (PP)


     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.07.2025,       THE    COURT   ON    THE       SAME   DAY     DELIVERED    THE
FOLLOWING:
 Bail Appl. No.8085 of 2025
                                                         2025:KER:51626
                                   -2-

                  BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
                  --------------------------------------
                   Bail Appl. No.8085 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 fourth accused in Crime No.915 of

2024 of Vellarada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, 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 27.09.2024, the

accused were found in possession while transporting 136.05 Kg of

Ganja in an Innova car bearing Reg. No.KL-24-E-7556 and thereby

committed the offences alleged.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner has been in custody since 28.09.2024. 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:51626

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.

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:51626

NDPS Act and held that the grounds for arrest must be

communicated.

9. In the instant case, it is seen that in the FI statement,

seizure mahazar and in the arrest intimation, there is a reference

that the petitioner has been arrested compliance with the legal

requirements. There is nothing specifically mentioned about the

grounds for arrest. Vague statements would not suffice the

constitutional requirement of communicating the grounds for

arrest. Though the arrest was intimated to the brother of the

petitioner, the same by itself would not satisfy the requirement as

observed by the Supreme Court in the decisions mentioned above.

10. Petitioner has been in custody from 28.09.2024

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.