Kerala High Court
Baby vs State Of Kerala on 6 October, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
BAIL APPL. NO. 11381 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:73193
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 14TH ASWINA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 11381 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1196/2023 OF Koraty Police Station, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER IN SC NO.579 OF 2024 OF III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR/II ADDITIONAL MACT/RENT CONTROL
APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR
PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.1 (IN CUSTODY FROM 24.02.2024) :
BABY
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O AUGUSTINE,
PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
EDAYAKUNNAM, CHERANALLUR,
KANNAYANNUR, ERANAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 682034
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
RESPONDENT/ STATE & COMPLAINANT :
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
BAIL APPL. NO. 11381 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:73193
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFFICER
KORATTY POLICE STATION,
KORATTY P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680308
BY SMT.SREEJA V., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 11381 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:73193
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------
B.A. No.11381 of 2025
---------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of October, 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.1196 of 2023 of
Koraty Police Station, Thrissur, which is now pending as S.C. No.579 of
2024 on the file of Court of the III Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur.
The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)
and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for
short, 'the NDPS Act').
3. According to the prosecution, on 02.11.2023, the accused
were found in possession of 58.5 kilograms of ganja while transporting it
in a car bearing No. HR-51- AV-0279. The petitioner herein, who was the
driver of the said vehicle, ran away from the car after stopping the vehicle
and thereby the accused committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was
arrested on 24.02.2024, and he has been in custody since then.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
BAIL APPL. NO. 11381 OF 2025
2025:KER:73193
petitioner has been in custody since 24.02.2024. 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 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
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 said information must be
provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient
knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds must be
BAIL APPL. NO. 11381 OF 2025
2025:KER:73193
communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which
he understands.
8. In a recent decision in Shahina vs. 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. In the instant case, on a perusal of the case diary, it is
noticed that petitioner was arrested pursuant to a production warrant and
after the court had issued an order for formal arrest. Therefore the
grounds for arrest cannot be said to have not been communicated to the
petitioner. However, the case diary does not indicate any intimation of
arrest having been given to any near relative of the petitioner. In the
decision in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v.State of Andhra Pradesh
and Others [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228], it has been observed that the
mandate of Article 22 would be satisfied only if the grounds for arrest are
communicated to the near relative of the arrestee. Since there is nothing
on record to indicate any type of communication having been given to
any near relative of the petitioner, I am satisfied that the grounds for
arrest have not been communicated in accordance with law.
10. Petitioner has been in custody from 24.02.2024 onwards.
Having regard to the above circumstances, I am satisfied that the
BAIL APPL. NO. 11381 OF 2025
2025:KER:73193
grounds for arrest have not been communicated to the petitioner as
required by law.
11. 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.
(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
RKM
BAIL APPL. NO. 11381 OF 2025
2025:KER:73193
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 11381/2025
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
IN CRIME NO. 1196/2023 OF KORATTY POLICE
STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT
Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2024 IN
CRL.M.P. NO.5037/2024 IN S.C. NO.579 OF
2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE III
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE; THRISSUR
Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.04.2024 IN
CRL.M.P. NO.2846/2024 PASSED BY THE COURT
OF THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE;
THRISSUR
Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.04.2025
IN B.A. NO.4965/2025 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT
