Muhammed Jawahar vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 8717 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 8717 Ker
Judgement Date : 15 September, 2025

Kerala High Court

Muhammed Jawahar vs State Of Kerala on 15 September, 2025

Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas

Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas

                                                       2025:KER:68493


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

  MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 24TH BHADRA, 1947

                      BAIL APPL. NO. 10806 OF 2025

       CRIME NO.807/2024 OF VADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION,

PALAKKAD AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 06.08.2025 IN BAIL

APPL. NO.9013 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

PETITIONER:

             MUHAMMED JAWAHAR.,
             AGED 26 YEARS,
             S/O MOIDEENKUTTY, NADUKANCHIRA, ELIYAPOTTA,
             CHERPULASSERY (PO), OTTAPALAM TALUK,
             PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679 503.


             BY ADVS.
             SMT.SREELAKSHMI SABU
             SHRI.MUHAMMED FAHIZ




RESPONDENT:

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

             SRI. NOUSHAD K. A. (PP)


     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.09.2025,     THE    COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 Bail. Appl. No.10806 of 2025

                                                           2025:KER:68493
                                     -2-

                        BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
                   --------------------------------------
                   Bail Appl. No.10806 of 2025
                    ------------------------------------
            Dated this the 15th 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.807 of 2024

of Vadakkancherry Police Station, Palakkad, registered for the

offences punishable under sections 332 r/w Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'), Sections 20(b)(ii)(B), 22(c), 25

and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

(for short 'NDPS Act') and Section 3(2)(e) of the Prevention of

Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short 'PDPP Act').

3. The prosecution case is that, on 28.06.2024, at around

12:21 hours, accused Nos.1 to 3 were found in possession of 2.040

Kg of ganja and 105.9 grams of MDMA in a car bearing Registration

No.KL-65-C-4955 and thereby committed the offences alleged.

Petitioner was arrested on 28.06.2024, and he has been in custody

since then.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner has been in custody since 28.06.2024. It was submitted

2025:KER:68493

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

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.

2025:KER:68493

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 records of investigation, it is noticed

that the arrest memo as well as the arrest intimation do not contain

any grounds for arrest as having been communicated to the

petitioner or his near relatives. In view of the above, I am satisfied

that the grounds for arrest have not been communicated as

contemplated by law.

10. Petitioner has been in custody from 28.06.2024

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

petitioner soon after the arrest, petitioner is entitled to be released

on bail.

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.