Dinu Jayan vs State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 1075 Ker

Kerala High Court

Dinu Jayan vs State Of Kerala on 3 February, 2026

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: Kauser Edappagath

B.A.No.14619/2025
                                     1


                                                         2026:KER:8999

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

  TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 14TH MAGHA, 1947

                      BAIL APPL. NO. 14619 OF 2025

       CRIME NO.675/2024 OF Thampanoor Police Station,
                      Thiruvananthapuram
       SC NO.2730 OF 2024 OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

           DINU JAYAN, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O JAYAKUMAR
           DEEPAM VEEDU, TC-67/3093, V- ONE NAGAR,
           AMBALATHARA, MUTTHATHARA VILLAGE,
           THIRUVANATHAPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 695009

           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, HIGH COURT
           OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031

    2      THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
           THAMPANOOR POLICE STATION, THAMPANOOR P.O,
           THIRUVANATHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001


           SRI.K.A. NOUSHAD, SR. PP


      THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.02.2026,     THE     COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 B.A.No.14619/2025
                                  2


                                                     2026:KER:8999



                               ORDER

This application is filed under Section 483 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS),

seeking regular bail.

2. The applicant is the accused No.1 in Crime

No.675/2024 of Thampanoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram

District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22(c),

27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

Act, 1985.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on

22.6.2024 at 10.55 pm, the applicant was found in possession of

100 grams of MDMA in the compound of the KSRTC bus terminal

at Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram District. The accused Nos. 2

and 3 in the crime conspired with the applicant for procurement of

the contraband involved in the crime and thereby committed the

offences.

4. I have heard Sri. P. Mohamed Sabah, the learned

counsel for the applicant and Sri. K.A. Noushad, the learned Senior

Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant

submitted that the requirement of informing the arrested person

of the grounds of arrest is mandatory under Article 22(1) of the

2026:KER:8999

Constitution of India and Section 47 of the BNSS and inasmuch as

the applicant was not furnished with the grounds of arrest, his

arrest was illegal and is liable to be released on bail. On the other

hand, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that all legal

formalities were complied with in accordance with Chapter V of

the BNSS at the time of the arrest of the applicant. It is further

submitted that the alleged incident occurred as part of the

intentional criminal acts of the applicant and hence he is not

entitled to bail at this stage.

6. The applicant was arrested on 22.6.2024 and

since then he is in judicial custody.

7. Though prima facie there are materials on record

to connect the applicant with the crime, since the applicant has

raised a question of absence of communication of the grounds of

his arrest, let me consider the same.

8. Chapter V of BNSS, 2023 deals with the arrest of

persons. Sub-section (1) of Section 35 of BNSS lists cases when

police may arrest a person without a warrant. Section 47 of BNSS

clearly states that every police officer or other person arresting

any person without a warrant shall forthwith communicate to him

full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other

grounds for such arrest. Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India

provides that no person who is arrested shall be detained in

2026:KER:8999

custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the

grounds for such arrest. Thus, the requirement of informing the

person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a

mandatory statutory and constitutional requirement.

Noncompliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution will be a

violation of the fundamental right of the accused guaranteed by

the said Article. It will also amount to a violation of the right to

personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.

9. The question whether failure to communicate

written grounds of arrest would render the arrest illegal,

necessitating the release of the accused, is no longer res integra.

The Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and

Others [(2024) 7 SCC 576], while dealing with Section 19 of the

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, has held that no

person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being

informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. It

was further held that a copy of written grounds of arrest should be

furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without

exception. In Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)

(2024) 8 SCC 254], while dealing with the offences under the

Unlawful Activities Prevention Act,1967 (for short, 'UAPA'), it was

held that any person arrested for an allegation of commission of

offences under the provisions of UAPA or for that matter any other

2026:KER:8999

offence(s) has a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed

about the grounds of arrest in writing and a copy of such written

grounds of arrest has to be furnished to the arrested person as a

matter of course and without exception at the earliest. It was

observed that the right to be informed about the grounds of arrest

flows from Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, and any

infringement of this fundamental right would vitiate the process of

arrest and remand.

10. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and

Others (2025 SCC OnLine SC 269], the Supreme Court, while

dealing with the offences under IPC, reiterated that the

requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of

arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional

requirement. It was further held that if the grounds of arrest are

not informed, as soon as may be after the arrest, it would amount

to the violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee

guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, and the arrest

will be rendered illegal. It was also observed in the said judgment

that although there is no requirement to communicate the

grounds of arrest in writing, there is no harm if the grounds of

arrest are communicated in writing and when arrested accused

alleges non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) of

the Constitution, the burden will always be on the Investigating

2026:KER:8999

Officer/Agency to prove compliance with the requirements of

Article 22(1).

11. In Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of

Andhra Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228), the Supreme Court

held that reading out the grounds of arrest stated in the arrest

warrant would tantamount to compliance of Art.22 of the

Constitution. It was further held that when an acused person is

arrested on warrant and it contains the reason for arrest, there is

no requirement to furnish the grounds for arrest separately and a

reading of the warrant to him itself is sufficient compliance with

the requirement of informing the grounds of his arrest. In State

of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702), it was

held that neither the Constitution nor the relevant statute

prescribes a specific form or insists upon a written communication

in every case. Substantial compliance of the same is sufficient

unless demonstrable prejudice is shown. It was further held that

individualised grounds are not an inflexible requirement post

Bansal and absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render

the arrest illegal unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or

denial of an opportunity to defend. However, in Ahmed Mansoor

v. State (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2650), another two Judge Bench of

the Supreme Court distinguished the principles declared in Sri

Darshan (supra) and observed that in Sri Darshan (supra), the

2026:KER:8999

facts governing are quite different in the sense that it was a case

dealing with the cancellation of bail where the chargesheet had

been filed and the grounds of detention were served immediately.

Recently, in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and

Another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356), the three Judge Bench of

the Supreme Court held that grounds of arrest must be informed

to the arrested person in each and every case without exception

and the mode of communication of such grounds must be in

writing in the language he understands. It was further held that

non supply of grounds of arrest in writing to the arrestee prior to

or immediately after arrest would not vitiate such arrest provided

said grounds are supplied in writing within a reasonable time and

in any case two hours prior to the production of arrestee before

the Magistrate.

12. A Single Bench of this Court in Yazin S. v. State

of Kerala (2025 KHC OnLine 2383) and in Rayees R.M. v. State

of Kerala (2025 KHC 2086) held that in NDPS cases, since the

quantity of contraband determines whether the offence is bailable

or non bailable, specification of quantity is mandatory for effective

communication of grounds. It was further held that burden is on

the police to establish proper communication of the arrest. In

Vishnu N.P. v. State of Kerala (2025 KHC OnLine 1262),

another Single Judge of this Court relying on all the decisions of

2026:KER:8999

the Supreme Court mentioned above specifically observed that

the arrest intimation must mention not only the penal section but

also the quantity of contraband allegedly seized.

13. The following principles of law emerge from the

above mentioned binding precedents.

(i) The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee

the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all

statutes including offences under IPC/BNS.

(ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in

writing to the arrestee in the language he understands.

(iii) In cases where the arresting officer/person is unable

to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing soon after arrest,

it be so done orally. The said grounds be communicated in writing

within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior

to the production of the arrestee for the remand proceedings

before the Magistrate.

(iv) In NDPS cases, specification of quantity of the

contraband seized is mandatory for effective communication of

grounds of arrest.

(v) In case of non compliance of the above, the

arrest and the subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and

the arrestee should be set free forthwith.

(vi) The burden is on the police to establish the

2026:KER:8999

proper communication of grounds of arrest.

(vii) The filing of charge sheet and cognizance of the

order cannot validate unconstitutional arrest.

14. I went through the case diary. On a perusal of

the case diary, it is noticed that the grounds of arrest were not

communicated to the applicant or his relatives in terms of Section

Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS and Article 22(1) of the

Constitution of India and the dictum laid down in the

aforementioned decisions. Hence, I hold that the requirement of

Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of BNSS have not

been satisfied. Therefore, applicant's arrest and his subsequent

remand are nonest and he is entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, the application is allowed on the following

conditions: -

(i) The applicant shall be released on bail on

executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with

two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the

jurisdictional Magistrate/Court.

(ii) The applicant shall fully co-operate with the

investigation.

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the

investigating officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m. every

Saturday until further orders. He shall also appear before the

2026:KER:8999

investigating officer as and when required.

(iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence of a

like nature while on bail.

(v) The applicant shall not attempt to contact any of

the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or

in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any

witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

(vi) The applicant shall not leave the State of Kerala

without the permission of the trial Court.

(vii) The application, if any, for deletion/modification of

the bail conditions or cancellation of bail on the grounds of

violating the bail conditions shall be filed at the jurisdictional

court.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp

2026:KER:8999

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 14619 OF 2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 675/2024 OF THAMPANOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANATHAPURAM DISTRICT Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.12.2025 IN CRL.M.P. NO.4763/2025 IN SC NO.2730/2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-II, THIRUVANATHAPURAM