Kerala High Court
Alvin Riby vs State Of Kerala on 10 September, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
BAIL APPL. NO. 10271 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:67079
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 19TH BHADRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 10271 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1053/2025 OF Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam
PETITIONER/ 2ND ACCUSED :
ALVIN RIBY
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O RIBI SEBASTIAN,
UMMIKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
ALOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680663
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SUNEESH KUMAR R.
SRI.B.BIPIN
SMT.K.J.ANITHA
RESPONDENT/ STATE AND COMPLAINANT :
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KALAMASSERRY POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 682 021
SRI. PRASANTH M.P., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BAIL APPL. NO. 10271 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:67079
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 10271 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:67079
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
-------------------------------------
B.A.No.10271 of 2025
------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of September, 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.1053 of 2025 of
Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act').
3. According to the prosecution, on 12.08.2025, the Sub
Inspector of Police, DANSAF, Ernakulam City received information
regarding the contraband kept for sale and reached the rented house of
the petitioner and recovered 5.550 grams of MDMA from the first accused
and 4.990 grams of MDMA from the pocket of the 2 nd accused and
thereby the accused committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was
arrested on 12.08.2025 and he has been in custody since then.
BAIL APPL. NO. 10271 OF 2025
2025:KER:67079
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has been in custody since 12.08.2025 and that the grounds for
arrest were not communicated 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
BAIL APPL. NO. 10271 OF 2025
2025:KER:67079
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 vs. State of Kerala [2025
KHC OnLine 706] this Court had 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 records of
investigation, it is noticed that though the grounds for arrest have been
communicated to the arrestee, there is no reference to the grounds for
arrest in the intimation given to the near relatives.
10. It is worthwhile to reproduce the observation of the
Supreme Court in paragraph 18(h) of the judgment in Khasi Reddy
Upendra Reddy v. State of Andra Pradesh [2025 INSC 768] which
reads as follows :-
"18(h)-The grounds of arrest should not only be provided to
the arrestee but also to his family members and relatives so that
necessary arrangements are made to secure the release of the person
arrested at the earliest possible opportunity so as to make the
mandate of Article 22(1) meaningful and effective, failing which, such
arrest may be rendered illegal".
BAIL APPL. NO. 10271 OF 2025
2025:KER:67079
11. Considering that the observations in Supreme Court
decision referred to above as well as the order of this Court in Shahina's
case (supra) specifically stated that the grounds for arrest must be
communicated not only to the arrestee, but also to the near relatives,
and the latter having not been complied with, the arrest of the petitioner
stands vitiated. Accordingly, petitioner's continued custody is illegal and
hence petitioner has to be released forthwith.
12. The Superintendent of District Jail, Kakkanad shall release
the petitioner forthwith. Ordered accordingly.
13. Before parting with this case, it is necessary to mention
that despite several judgments of the Supreme Court as well as this
Court, mentioned in this order, the DANSAF team which is created
specifically for detecting offences under the NDPS Act, has failed, in the
crime involved in this case, to communicate the grounds for arrest as
contemplated by law.
14. The failure of the DANSAF team to comply with the
requirements of law compels this Court to direct the State Police Chief to
ensure that the officers under him are equipped with the latest position of
law, especially those relating to arrest. This requires periodic training
sessions. The failure to impart such training may lead to the accused in
heinous crimes being released due to illegal arrests. Hence the State
BAIL APPL. NO. 10271 OF 2025
2025:KER:67079
Police Chief shall bestow his serious attention to the above aspects and
initiate appropriate steps to remedy the situation at the earliest.
The Registry shall communicate the order to the State Police
Chief at the earliest.
The bail application is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE
RKM
BAIL APPL. NO. 10271 OF 2025
2025:KER:67079
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 10271/2025
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :
Annexure-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. CRIME
NO. 1053/2025 OF THE KALAMASSERRY POLICE
STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
Annexure-A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE S.R.O.NO.434/2024
DATED 14.05.2024.
Annexure-A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE S.R.O.NO.470/2025
DATED 23.04.2025.
Annexure-A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN STATE OF
RAJASTHAN V. JAG RAJ SINGH @ HANSA,
REPORTED IN AIR 2016 SC 3041.
