[Cites 19, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Praseeth G vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2026

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: Kauser Edappagath

                                                                  2026:KER:11404

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

     MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 20TH MAGHA, 1947

                         BAIL APPL. NO. 133 OF 2026

      CRIME NO.277/2024 OF MANIMALA POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM

      AGAINST      THE   JUDGMENT    DATED    03.11.2025    IN    BAIL   APPL.

NO.13013 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA


PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

            PRASEETH G,
            AGED 52 YEARS
            S/O GOPALAKRISHNAN, PADANNAMACKAL HOUSE,PALLIKKATHODU
            P.O, VAZHOOR, KOTTAYAMKERALA, INDIA, PIN - 686503


            BY ADVS.
            SHRI.ABHIJITH SREEKUMAR
            SHRI.KIRAN RAJ R.
            SHRI.PRAMOD B.
            SHRI.TITTU JOSE CHACKANAD
            SHRI.JAYAMOHAN P.K.
            SMT.SANCHANA S.
            SMT.MEERA PRASAD
            SHRI.AKSHAY BABURAJ
            SHRI.NAJUMAL A.


RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

            STATE OF KERALA,
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
            HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.T.P. SAJAN, SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR



     THIS   BAIL    APPLICATION     HAVING    COME   UP   FOR    ADMISSION   ON
09.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A. No.133 of 2026
                                       -2-

                                                                2026:KER:11404




                                  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.277/2024 of Manimala Police Station, Kottayam District. The

offences alleged are punishable under Sections 302, 120B and

326A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 13.4.2024 at

9.30 am, the applicant along with accused no.1 due to prior

enmity towards the de-facto complainant, orchestrated a

premeditated attack involving intoxication followed by the

application of acid leading to fatal injuries and death of the victim

and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Abhijith Sreekumar, 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

2026:KER:11404

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 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 14.04.2024 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

2026:KER:11404

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.

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

2026:KER:11404

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 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

2026:KER:11404

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 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

2026:KER:11404

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 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

2026:KER:11404

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 statutes

including offences under IPC/BNS.

(ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in

writing to the arrestee in the language he understands.

2026:KER:11404

(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. It would show that the

grounds of arrest were not communicated to the applicant or his

relative in terms of Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS and the

dictum laid down in the afore mentioned decisions. Hence, I hold

that the requirement of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and

- 10 -

2026:KER:11404

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 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.

- 11 -

2026:KER:11404

(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 SKP

- 12 -

2026:KER:11404

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 133 OF 2026

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF F.I.R IN CR.NO 277/2024 OF MANIMALA POLICE STATION Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL ORDER CRL.MP NO.2019/2025 IN S.C NO.668/2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE CASE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C NO. 668/2024 DATED 17/12/2025 Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN SC NO.