[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Vishnu vs State Of Kerala on 10 February, 2026
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
2026:KER:11869
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026/21ST MAGHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 543 OF 2026
CRIME NO.900/2025 OF KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6:
VISHNU
AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. SUNIL,
MELEPALAYATHI HOUSE, SREENIVASAPURAM, MUNDAYIL,
VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 678574
BY ADVS.
SRI.SAM ISAAC POTHIYIL
SMT.S.SURAJA
SHRI.MUHAMMED SUHAIR C.A
SMT.AKSHAYA N.K.
SMT.BINEETHA THOMAS
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANATHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695605
BY ADV.
SRI.M.C. ASHI, SR. PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.02.2026,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 543 OF 2026
2
2026:KER:11869
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.6 in
Crime No.900/2025 of Kallambalam Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram District. The offences alleged are
punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the NDPS
Act' for short).
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the
accused Nos.1 to 6 conspired to procure, smuggle and
distribute methamphetamine on a commercial scale within
India originating from Oman. The accused Nos.1, 2 and 5
were found in possession of 1.235 kgs of
methamphetamine and thereby committed the
aforementioned offences.
4. I have heard Sri. Sam Isaac Pothiyil, the
learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. M.C.Ashi, the
learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant
BAIL APPL. NO. 543 OF 2026
2026:KER:11869
submitted that the applicant has been in custody since
14.08.2025 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. State of Maharashtra
and Another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356).
BAIL APPL. NO. 543 OF 2026
2026:KER:11869
8. In the instant case, formal arrest of the
applicant was recorded and hence, the communication of
grounds of arrest to the applicant is not required.
However, the grounds of arrest have not been
communicated to the 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 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, the arrest stands vitiated and he is
entitled to be released on bail.
BAIL APPL. NO. 543 OF 2026
2026:KER:11869
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.
(vi) The applicant shall not leave the State of
Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.
BAIL APPL. NO. 543 OF 2026
2026:KER:11869
(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
ARK
BAIL APPL. NO. 543 OF 2026
2026:KER:11869
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 543 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.01.2026
PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS COURT THIRUVANATHAPURAM,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM DISTRICT IN CRL.M.P
