Ismail Sait A vs State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 1337 Ker

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1337 Ker
Judgement Date : 9 February, 2026

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Ismail Sait A vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2026

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: Kauser Edappagath

B.A.No. 12279 of 2025
                              ..1..


                                                 2026:KER:11675


           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. 12279 OF 2025

  CRIME NO.75/2025 OF PALLURUTHY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

  IN SC NO.1061 OF 2025 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT/RENT
            CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4:

           ISMAIL SAIT A,
           AGED 23 YEARS, SON OF AMJATH SAIT,
           11/280-B, CHACHAS HOUSE,
           R.C ROAD, KARUVELIPPADY,
           THOPPUMPADY,
           ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682005

           BY ADVS.
           SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
           SRI.VIVEK VENUGOPAL
           SRI.BABU JOSE
           SHRI.GAJENDRA SINGH RAJPUROHIT
           SHRI.AKHIL GEORGE
           SHRI.ATHUL POULOSE
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

           STATE OF KERALA,
           REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
           HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
           ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
           SMT.SREEJA V., SR. PP

     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 B.A.No. 12279 of 2025
                                  ..2..


                                                       2026:KER:11675



                             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.4 in Crime

No.75/2025 of Palluruthy Police Station, Ernakulam District.

The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22(c) and

29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985 and Section 111(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 30.01.2025

at 18.45 hours, with the intention to secure unlawful profit by

selling narcotic drugs, the accused Nos. 1 to 6 who are part of

the drug lobby, where the accused No.6 is from a foreign

country, smuggled narcotics via flight with the help of accused

Nos. 3 and 5. The accused No.1 collected the drugs from

accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 for sale. The seized narcotic drugs

included 108.9378 grams of MDMA, packed in 5 zip-lock

..3..

2026:KER:11675

covers. The accused No.1 stored these drugs for sale inside a

bag in the cupboard of a rented house located at H.No.C.C

14/2608, Arjunan Master Lane, Palluruthy Village, Edakochi and

thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Nireesh Mathew, the learned

counsel for the applicant and Smt.V.Sreeja, 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 25.03.2025 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

..4..

2026:KER:11675

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)

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. The records would show that the formal arrest of the

applicant was recorded. Hence, the grounds of arrest need not

be given to the applicant. However, the grounds of arrest were

not communicated to the near relatives. 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

..5..

2026:KER:11675

mandate of Art.22(1) meaningful and effective, 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 relatives 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.