[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Haider Ali vs State Of Kerala on 4 February, 2026
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
B.A.No.14585/2025
1
2026:KER:9567
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. 14585 OF 2025
CRIME NO.17/2025 OF Kumbala Excise Range Office, Kasargod
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
HAIDER ALI, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O ALIKUTTY
KHALEEL MANZIL NEAR GLPS KUNJATHUR UDYAWAR,
MANJESHWAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671323
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 EXCISE INSPECTOR,
EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KUMBALA, KUMBALA P.O.,
KASRGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671321
SRI.K.A. NOUSHAD, SR. 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.14585/2025
2
2026:KER:9567
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 in Crime
No.17/2025 of Kumbala Excise Range, Kasaragod District. The
offence alleged is punishable under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the
NDPS Act).
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on
14.7.2025 at about 2.30 pm, the applicant was found in
possession of 139.038 grams of Methamphetamine at
Vamanjoor in Manjeshwar Village in contravention of the NDPS
Act and Rules.
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 Constitution of India and Section 47 of the
BNSS and inasmuch as the applicant was not furnished with the
2026:KER:9567
grounds of arrest, his arrest was illegal and is liable to be
released on bail. On the other hand, the learned 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 14.7.2025 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 custody without being informed, as soon as
may be, of the grounds for such arrest. Thus, the requirement of
2026:KER:9567
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:9567
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
2026:KER:9567
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
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)
2026:KER:9567
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 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
2026:KER:9567
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 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
2026:KER:9567
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.
I went through the case diary. It shows that the grounds
of arrest were intimated to the applicant and all formalities in
accordance with Chapter V of BNSS have been complied with.
The notice served on the applicant under Section 47 of BNSS
shows that at the time of his arrest, the specific grounds and
reasons for arrest were communicated to him. Therefore, the
applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. The bail
application is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
kp
2026:KER:9567
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 14585 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE CRIME AND OCCURRENCE
REPORT IN CRIME NO. 17/2025 OF EXCISE
RANGE OFFICE, KUMBALA, KASARGOD
DISTRICT
Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST MEMO IN CRIME
NO. 17/2025 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE,
KUMBALA, KASARGOD DISTRICT
Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST INTIMATION IN
CRIME NO. 17/2025 OF EXCISE RANGE
OFFICE, KUMBALA, KASARGOD DISTRICT
Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 29.11.2025 IN
CRL.M.C. NO.1758/2025 PASSED BY THE
HONOURABLE COURT OF SESSIONS; KASRGOD
DIVISION
