Dilshad vs State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 1176 Ker

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1176 Ker
Judgement Date : 4 February, 2026

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Dilshad vs State Of Kerala on 4 February, 2026

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: Kauser Edappagath

B.A.No. 347 of 2026

                                 ..1..

                                                    2026:KER:9541


           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. 347 OF 2026

   CRIME NO.385/2025 OF NALLALAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2025 IN BAIL APPL. NO.12970 OF
                2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

           DILSHAD,
           AGED 32 YEARS
           EDAKUTTIPURATH (H),
           KAILAMADAM, PANTHEERANKAVU P. O.,
           KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673019

           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
           NALLALAM POLICE STATION, NALLALAM P.O,
           KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673027
 B.A.No. 347 of 2026

                              ..2..

                                              2026:KER:9541



           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. 347 of 2026

                               ..3..

                                                     2026:KER:9541


                         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.385/2025

of Nallalam Police Station, Kozhikode District. The offence

alleged is punishable under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

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

13.06.2025, at approximately 8:30 p.m., upon receiving

confidential information that the applicant, residing in a house

rented by one Thambikkutty at Kizhakke Kunnathuparambu,

had stored MDMA in his car bearing registration number KL-

80-0569, the police arrived at the location around 10:50 p.m.;

upon seeing the police party, the applicant fled the scene;

and during the search, the police party discovered 51 grams

of MDMA in the said car and thereby committed the offence.

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

..4..

2026:KER:9541

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

Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted

that the applicant has been in custody since 18.06.2025 and

the grounds of arrest were not communicated in accordance

with law at the time of his arrest. The learned Senior Public

Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the bail application and

submitted that the grounds of arrest were duly

communicated.

6. 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.

7. It is now well settled that the requirement of

informing a person of the grounds for arrest is a mandatory

requirement of Art.22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of

BNSS and absence of the same would render the arrest illegal

(See. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others [(2024)

..5..

2026:KER:9541

7 SCC 576], Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)

[(2024) 8 SCC 254], Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana

and Others (2025 SCC OnLine SC 269] and Mihir Rajesh

Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2025 SCC

OnLine SC 2356).

8. In the instant case, the perusal of the records show

that the grounds of arrest including the quantity of the

contraband seized from the applicant have been

communicated to him. But in the intimation given to the

friend of the applicant, the grounds of arrest as well as the

quantity of the contraband seized were not communicated.

The Supreme Court in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State

of Andhra Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228) has held

that the grounds of arrest should not only be provided to the

arrestee but also to his family members and relatives so that

necessary arrangements are made to secure the release of

the person arrested at the earliest possible opportunity so as

to make the mandate of Art.22(1) meaningful and effective,

..6..

2026:KER:9541

failing which, such arrest would be rendered illegal. A learned

Single Judge of this Court in Alvin Riby v. State of Kerala

(2025 KER 67079) following Kasireddy Upender Reddy

(supra) held that failure to communicate the grounds of arrest

to the near relatives renders the arrest illegal. Inasmuch as

the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the friend of

the applicant in accordance with law, the arrest stands

vitiated 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.