Kadeejathul Farhana vs State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 1131 Ker

Kerala High Court

Kadeejathul Farhana vs State Of Kerala on 4 February, 2026

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: Kauser Edappagath

B.A.No. 361 of 2026

                                 ..1..

                                                   2026:KER:9608


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

 WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 15TH MAGHA, 1947

                      BAIL APPL. NO. 361 OF 2026

  CRIME NO.683/2023 OF NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.10.2025 IN BAIL APPL. NO.12465 OF
                2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

           KADEEJATHUL FARHANA,
           AGED 20 YEARS
           KOOTTUTHODI HOUSE,
           NEAR ITTIKKODU JUMA MASJID,
           CHALAVARA, CHERPPULASSERY P.O.,
           PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679506

           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
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

    1      STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
           HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
           ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031
    2      THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
           NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION,
           KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT,, PIN - 673011
 B.A.No. 361 of 2026

                              ..2..

                                                  2026:KER:9608



           BY ADVS.
           PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
           ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION

           SRI. C.K.SURESH, SPL. PP

     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 B.A.No. 361 of 2026

                                  ..3..

                                                       2026:KER:9608


                             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.2 in Crime

No.683/2023 of Nadakkavu Police Station, Kozhikode District.

The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 397, 302,

120B, and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, is as follows:- The de facto

complainant lodged a complaint on 24.05.2023, before the

Tirur Police Station about the missing father of the de facto

complainant. Accused No.1 was the employee of the hotel,

run by the father of the de-facto complainant, and in

furtherance of common intention, to extract money from the

father of the de-facto complainant by seducing him by

showing the applicant, who is the lover of the accused No. 1,

and consequently, on 18/05/2023 the father of the defacto

complainant had obtained two rooms at the De Casa Inn

..4..

2026:KER:9608

lodge at Eranhipalam, Kozhikode. The prosecution further

states that the father of the de facto complainant was forced

to disrobe to capture the nude photos by the applicant with

the help of accused No. 3, who was arrested later, to extract

the money from the father of the de facto complainant with

intimidation. According to the prosecution, despite the

resistance of the father of the de facto complainant, accused

No.1 caused a cut injury over the neck of the father of the de

facto complainant with a knife and also hit the head of the

father of the de facto complainant with a hammer, as assisted

by the accused No.3, and the accused No.3 kicked on the

chest of the father of the de facto complainant, and due to

the impact of the alleged activity, father of the de facto

complainant had succumbed to death. Thereafter, they

robbed his ATM card and the key of the car. To destroy

evidence, they conspired to cut the dead body into pieces and

abandon the same at Attappadi. Thereafter, they purchased

new trolley bags and an electric cutter. The applicant and

..5..

2026:KER:9608

accused No. 1, using the electric cutter, cut the dead body

into three pieces and enclosed the same in two trolley bags.

They cleaned the room and, to destroy evidence, took the

trolley bags in a car, and all the accused persons together

abandoned the trolley bags at the 9th hairpin of Attappadi

Churam and thereby committed the offences.

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

counsel for the applicant and Sri.C.K.Suresh, the learned

Special 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 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 Special

Public Prosecutor submitted that all legal formalities were

complied with in accordance with Chapter V of the BNSS at

..6..

2026:KER:9608

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 she is not entitled to

bail at this stage.

6. The applicant was arrested on 27.05.2023 and since

then she 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

..7..

2026:KER:9608

arrested shall be detained in 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

..8..

2026:KER:9608

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 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

..9..

2026:KER:9608

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 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

..10..

2026:KER:9608

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

..11..

2026:KER:9608

the principles declared in Sri Darshan (supra) and observed

that in Sri Darshan (supra), the 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

..12..

2026:KER:9608

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 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

..13..

2026:KER:9608

writing to the arrestee in the language he/she 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 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

..14..

2026:KER:9608

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

communicated to the applicant or her relatives in terms of

Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, Section 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 her

subsequent remand are nonest and she 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

..15..

2026:KER:9608

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

until further orders. She shall also appear before the

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 APA

..16..

2026:KER:9608

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 361 OF 2026

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13-10-2025 IN BAIL APPL.12465/2025 ON HIGH COURT ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05-06-2025 IN BAIL APPL.5188/2025 ON HIGH COURT ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07-08-2024 IN BAIL APPL.6414/2024 ON HIGH COURT ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15-12-2023 IN BAIL APPL.10296/2023 ON HIGH COURT ANNEXURE 5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03-03-2025 IN BAIL APPL.787/2025 ON HIGH COURT ANNEXURE 6 TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST MEMO DATED 27.05.2023 OF THE PETITIONER IN CRIME NO. CRIME NO.702 OF 2023 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT ANNEXURE 7 TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION MEMO DATED 27.05.2023 OF THE PETITIONER IN CRIME NO. CRIME NO.702 OF 2023 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT ANNEXURE 8 TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST INTIMATION DATED 27.05.2023 GIVEN TO THE BROTHER OF THE PETITIONER IN CRIME NO. CRIME NO.702 OF 2023 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT ANNEXURE 9 TRUE COPY OF THE CUSTODY APPLICATION DATED 23.06.2023 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FILE BY STATE