Kerala High Court
Anoop Varghese vs State Of Kerala on 6 October, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
B.A.No.11952 of 2025 1
2025:KER:73191
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. 11952 OF 2025
CRIME NO.804/2024 OF Kumily Police Station, Idukki
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 15.09.2025 IN Bail Appl.
NO.11599 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ARISING OUT OF THE
ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC (NDPS) NO.6 OF 2025 OF SPECIAL
COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), THODUPUZHA
PETITIONER/S:
ANOOP VARGHESE, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O VARKY, CHEMBANAL
HOUSE, KUMILY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685509
[NAME OF PETITIONER IS CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED
24.09.2025 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1 OF 2025]
BY ADV SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER OF KUMILY POLICE STATION
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 685509
SRI. NOUSHAD K. A. (PP)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.11952 of 2025 2
2025:KER:73191
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
B.A.No.11952 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.804 of 2024
of Kumily Police Station, Idukki, registered for the offences
punishable under sections 22(c), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').
3. According to the prosecution, on 14.09.2024, the
accused was found in possession of 60 grams of MDMA while
transporting the same in a vehicle bearing No.KL-37-F-6785 and
thereby committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested on
14.09.2024, and he has been in custody since then. During
chemical analysis, it was found that the contraband was
methamphetamine and not MDMA.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner has been in custody since 14.09.2024. It was
2025:KER:73191
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 said
2025:KER:73191
information must be provided to the arrested person in such a
manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting
the grounds must be communicated 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 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 does not contain any grounds for arrest. Similarly, in
the arrest intimation also, there is nothing to indicate that the
grounds for arrest were communicated.
10. Having regard to the above circumstances, I am
satisfied that the petitioner has not been communicated with the
grounds for arrest as contemplated by law. Petitioner has been in
custody from 14.09.2024 onwards. Since the grounds for arrest
were not communicated to the petitioner soon after the arrest,
petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.
2025:KER:73191
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.
(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.
(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
2025:KER:73191
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
sp/06/10/2025
2025:KER:73191
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 11952/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.03.2025
IN CRL.M.C.NO. 48/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE
SPECIAL JUDGE FOR NDPSACT CASES,
THODUPUZHA
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST MEMO DATED
14.09.2024
