[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Jabir K.M vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2026
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
B.A.No.575/2026
1
2026:KER:11435
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. 575 OF 2026
CRIME NO.28/2025 OF Mananthavady Excise Range Office, Wayanad
SC NO.416 OF 2025 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT -
II/SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS ACT CASES, KALPETTA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
JABIR K.M, AGED 34 YEARS
BAMBRANI NAGAR, CHERKALA, CHENGALA P.O., CHENGALA
VILLAGE , KASARGODE DISTRICT, PIN - 671541
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
RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031
2 THE EXCISE INSPECTOR
EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, MANANTHAVADY, MANANTHAVADY
P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 670645
SRI.K.A. NOUSHAD, 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.575/2026
2
2026:KER:11435
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.28/2025 of Mananthavady Excise Range Office, Waynad
District. The offence alleged is punishable under Section 22(c)
read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act').
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on
19.3.2025 at about 7.50 am, the applicant and accused No.2 were
found in possession and transportation of 6.987 grams of
methamphetamine in a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-01-CY
6215 at the Tolpetty Excuse check post, Thirunelli Village,
Mananthavady Taluk in contravention of the NDPS Act. Further, on
25.3.2025, during investigation, the applicant and the accused
No.2 made confession and based on the confession statement, a
total quantity of 285 grams of methamphetamine were found
hidden in a secret compartment of the above car's trunk and
thereby committed the offence.
4. I have heard Sri. P. Mohamed Sabah, the learned
2026:KER:11435
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 19.03.2025, and the
grounds of arrest were not communicated in accordance with the
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 to
inform 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)]. 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
2026:KER:11435
grounds of arrest must be informed to the arrested person in
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 before or immediately after arrest would not vitiate
such arrest, provided said grounds are supplied in writing within a
reasonable time and in any case two hours before the production
of the arrestee before the Magistrate. However, it was clarified
that the requirement to communicate the written grounds of
arrest to the arrestee would only operate prospectively.
8. 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)
following Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra) held that failure to
communicate the grounds of arrest to the near relatives renders
the arrest illegal.
2026:KER:11435
9. The case of the applicant is that the written
grounds of arrest were not intimated to his relative and hence the
arrest stands vitiated and he is entitled to be released on bail. I
went through the case diary. It shows that the grounds of arrest
were intimated to the applicant and all formalities in accordance
with Chapter V of BNSS have been complied with. The notice
served on the applicant under Section 47 of BNSS shows that at
the time of his arrest, the specific grounds of arrest, the reasons
for arrest and the quantity of the contraband seized were
communicated to him. The copy of the arrest intimation given to
the relative of the applicant under Section 48 of the BNSS forms
part of the case records. It also shows that the specific grounds of
arrest, the reasons for arrest and the quantity of contraband
seized were stated therein. However, the endorsement therein
would show that it was intimated over the phone only. The
Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) has clarified that
the requirement to communicate the written grounds of arrest to
the arrestee would only operate prospectively. The said dictum
could be applied to the requirement to communicate the written
grounds of arrest to the relatives of the arrestee as well. Thus, the
mandate to furnish the written grounds of arrest to the arrestee as
well as to his relatives, cannot be applied to arrests made before
2026:KER:11435
the date of the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra). If the
arrest is made before the date of judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah
(supra), the communication of the grounds of arrest to the
arrestee as well as to his relative over phone or in person is
sufficient for the compliance of Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS
and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. [See Muhammed
Aslam v. State of Kerala (2026 KHC OnLine 94)]. In this case,
the arrest was before the date of the said judgment and the
grounds of arrest were intimated to the applicant in writing and to
his relative over phone. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to
be released on bail.
The bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.
sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
kp
2026:KER:11435
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 575 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE CRIME AND OCCURRENCE
REPORT IN CRIME NO. 28/2025 OF EXCISE
RANGE OFFICE, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD
DISTRICT
Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR
PERTAINING TO THE FIRST SEIZURE IN CRIME
NO. 28/2025 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE,
MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT
Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR
PERTAINING TO THE SECOND SEIZURE IN CRIME
NO. 28/2025 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE,
MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT
Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2026
IN BA NO. 14378 OF 2025 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT
