Kerala High Court
Alex Chacko vs State Of Kerala on 17 September, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
BAIL APPL. NO. 11042 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:69333
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 26TH BHADRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 11042 OF 2025
CRIME NO.398/2025 OF BADIADUKKA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 21.08.2025 IN Bail Appl.
NO.9499 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2:
ALEX CHACKO
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O CHACKO JOSEPH, R/AT MUTTATHUPARA HOUSE,
MOOKAMPARA, BADIADKA, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671551.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.ANAS MUHAMMED SHAMNAD
SRI.C.C.ANOOP
SHRI.SALEEK.C.A.
SHRI.HAMDAN MANSOOR K.
RESPONDENT(S):
1 (ALEX CHACKO, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O CHACKO JOSEPH, R/AT
MUTTATHUPARA HOUSE, MOOKAMPARA, BADIADKA, KASARAGOD PIN
- 671551) DELETED AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 10.19.2025
IN CRL.MA.NO.1/2025
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031,
PIN - 671551.
3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
BADIADKA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT,
PIN - 671551.
BY SRI. PRASANTH M.P., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.09.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 11042 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:69333
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
B.A. No.11042 of 2025
...................................................
Dated this the 17th 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.398/2025 of Badiadukka
Police Station, Kasaragod; registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 22(c), and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for short, NDPS).
3. The prosecution case is that, on 18.05.2025 accused were found in
possession of 107.090 grams of MDMA, and thereby the accused
committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested on 18.05.2025
and he has been in custody since then.
4. Heard Sri.R.Anas Muhammed Shamnadanas, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, as well as Sri.prasanth M.P. the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has
been in custody since 18.05.2025. It was submitted that the grounds for
arrest were not communicated to the petitioner or his relatives at the
time of his arrest.
BAIL APPL. NO. 11042 OF 2025
2025:KER:69333
6. 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. It was further submitted that the investigation in the case has
not yet been completed and that the petitioner was arrested only on
18.05.2025.
7. 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.
8. 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
communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which
he understands.
BAIL APPL. NO. 11042 OF 2025
2025:KER:69333
9. 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.
10. On a perusal of the case diary, and records of investigation, this
Court notices that except for a mention of the provisions of law under
which the petitioner was arrested, there is no reference to any grounds
for arrest. In view of the above, I am satisfied that the grounds for
arrest have not been communicated as contemplated by law. However it
is pointed out that the case is still under investigation and final report
has not yet been filed.
11. Taking note of the above, I am of the view that since the
grounds for arrest have not been communicated to the near relatives as
contemplated by law, petitioner's arrest stands vitiated. In such
circumstances, his continued custody is legally impermissible.
Accordingly, the petitioner, being vitiated, he has to be set at liberty
forthwith.
In the result, the Superintendent of District Jail, Kannur; where the
petitioner is presently lodged, is directed to release him forthwith.
This application is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
AMV/17/09/2025
BAIL APPL. NO. 11042 OF 2025
2025:KER:69333
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 11042/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRIMINAL
MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 1143/2025 BEFORE THE
COURT OF SESSIONS, KASARAGOD DIVISION DATED
29-07-2025.
ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST MEMO DATED
18.05.2025.
