[Cites 21, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Ramjith vs State Of Kerala on 6 February, 2026
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
B.A.No. 14236 of 2025
..1..
2026:KER:10605
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 17TH MAGHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 14236 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1173/2025 OF KADAKKAVOOR POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2025 IN CRL.MP NO.4559 OF 2025
OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
RAMJITH
AGED 28 YEARS, S/O SUDHARMA,
CHARUVILA PADINJATTATHIL VEEDU,
PAZHANJIRA, MELKADAKKAVOOR,
SARKARA VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695304
BY ADV SRI.AKHIL SUSEENDRAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.,
ERANKULAM, PIN - 682031
SRI.K.A. NOUSHAD, SR. PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No. 14236 of 2025
..2..
2026:KER:10605
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.1173/2025 of Kadakkavoor Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram District. The offences alleged are
punishable under Sections 22(c), 20(b)(ii)(A) & 29 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for
short, 'the NDPS Act').
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on
03.10.2025, at about 6.25 p.m., the applicant was found in
possession and transporting 3.020 grams of ganja, 0.230
grams of MDMA and 0.140 grams of LSD Stamp, procured from
accused No.2, in a Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-27-L-7837,
for the purpose of sale near Pazhanchira pond, Sarkkara
Village and thereby committed the offences.
4. I have heard Sri.Akhil Suseendran, the learned
..3..
2026:KER:10605
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
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 03.10.2025 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
..4..
2026:KER:10605
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 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.
..5..
2026:KER:10605
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
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
..6..
2026:KER:10605
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
..7..
2026:KER:10605
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 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
..8..
2026:KER:10605
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 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
..9..
2026:KER:10605
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 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
..10..
2026:KER:10605
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 proper
communication of grounds of arrest.
(vii) The filing of charge sheet and cognizance of the
order cannot validate unconstitutional arrest.
..11..
2026:KER:10605
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 the relative under Sections
47 and 48 of the BNSS, Article 22(1) of the Constitution and
the dictum laid down in the aforementioned decisions. Hence,
the arrest of the applicant is vitiated. Accordingly, the Jail
Superintendent, Attingal Sub Jail, Thiruvananthapuram District,
is directed to release the applicant forthwith.
The bail application is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH,
JUDGE
APA
..12..
2026:KER:10605
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 14236 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1173/2025
OF KADAKKAVOOR POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM INVOLVING OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 22(C), 20(B)(II)(A)
& 29 OF THE NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC
SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985
ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P NO
4559/2025 BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
COURT-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 12.11.2025
