[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sanooj V.S vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2026
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
2026:KER:11338
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. 640 OF 2026
CRIME NO.52/2025 OF EXCISE ENFORCEMENT AND ANTI NARCOTIC SPECIAL
SQUAD, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
SANOOJ V.S.,
AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. SUBHAGAN,
VATTAKKATTU NIKARTHIL, S.N. LANE, KADEBHAGAM,
PALLURUTHY, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682006
BY ADVS.
SHRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
SHRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (THURAVOOR)
SHRI.SURESH SUKUMAR
SHRI.SANJAY SELLEN
SMT.SONIA SHIBU
SMT.AAMINA RAFEEK
SMT.SARA ELIZABETH MATHEW
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 EXCISE INSPECTOR,
EXCISE ENFORCEMENT & ANTI NARCOTIC SPECIAL SQUAD,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 687001
BAIL APPL. NO. 640 OF 2026
2
2026:KER:11338
BY ADVS.
SMR.SREEJA V., SR. PP FOR R1 &
SRI.JAISHANKAR V. NAIR, SC FOR R2
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 640 OF 2026
3
2026:KER:11338
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.52/2025 of Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic
Special Squad, Palakkad. 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
12.08.2025 at 7.30 pm, on Coimbatore - Palakkad National
Highway in front of Labour Camp House of NHAI near
Pampampallam Toll Plaza at Ganesapuram, the accused
Nos. 1 and 2 were found in possession of 82.8 grams of
Methamphetamine. Thereby they have committed the
above-mentioned offence.
4. I have heard Sri. Lal K Joseph, the
learned counsel for the applicant and Smt. Sreeja.V, the
learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant
BAIL APPL. NO. 640 OF 2026
2026:KER:11338
submitted that the applicant has been in custody since
12.08.2025 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) 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.
BAIL APPL. NO. 640 OF 2026
2026:KER:11338
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 have been
communicated to the arrestee, but they were not
communicated to the near relatives. The endorsement in
the arrest intimation given to the mother of the applicant
would show that she was informed through phone.
However, it appears from the intimation that the quantity
of the contraband seized was not intimated. 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, 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)
BAIL APPL. NO. 640 OF 2026
2026:KER:11338
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, 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.
(ii) The applicant shall not commit any offence of a
like nature while on bail.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The applicant shall not leave the State of
BAIL APPL. NO. 640 OF 2026
2026:KER:11338
Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.
(v) 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
ARK
BAIL APPL. NO. 640 OF 2026
2026:KER:11338
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 640 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/12/2025
ISSUED BY THE COURT OF SESSION PALAKKAD
DIVISION
ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/10/2025
IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO 4778/2025
BEFORE SESSION, PALAKKAD DIVISION
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/1/2026 IN B.A
NO 13243/2025 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
