Imran @ Hamsath Ikthiyar @ Irshad vs State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 1400 Ker

Kerala High Court

Imran @ Hamsath Ikthiyar @ Irshad vs State Of Kerala on 10 February, 2026

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: Kauser Edappagath

BA No.12588/2025



                                                  2026:KER:10993
                              :1:
           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. 12588 OF 2025

     CRIME NO.56/2025 OF Kunnamangalam Police Station,
                         Kozhikode
   SC No.212 of 2025 on the file of Court of the Special
              Judge (NDPS Act Cases) Vatakara
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 (IN CUSTODY FROM 20.5.2025):

           IMRAN @ HAMSATH IKTHIYAR @ IRSHAD
           AGED 30 YEARS
           S/O LATE ABHUBACKER, MUDIPPU HECHKAL PANCHAYATH,
           MANGALURU, KARNATAKA, PIN - 574153

           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



RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:

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

     2     THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
           KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KUNNAMANGALAM P.O,
           KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673571

           SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD, SR.PP

     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
3.02.2026,   THE  COURT   ON   10.02.2026  DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 BA No.12588/2025



                                                         2026:KER:10993
                                      :2:
                                                                     "C.R."
                                  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.56/2025 of Kunnamangalam Police Station, Kozhikode

District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections

22(c), 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act').

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 21/1/2025

at 12.50 p.m, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were found in

possession of 221.89 grams of MDMA inside an almirah in room

No.208 of Hotel VR Residency, Karanthur, Kunnamangalam, for

sale and thereby committed the aforementioned offences.

4. I have heard Sri.P.Mohamed Sabah, the learned

counsel for the applicant and Sri.K.A.Noushad, the learned

Senior 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

Constitution of India and Section 47 of the BNSS, and since the

applicant was not furnished with the grounds of arrest, his arrest

2026:KER:10993

was illegal and he is liable to be released on bail. On the other

hand, the learned 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 20/5/2025, and since

then, he has been 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 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

2026:KER:10993

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 the failure to communicate the

written grounds of arrest would render the arrest illegal,

necessitating the release of the accused, is no longer res

integra. In Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others [(2024) 7

SCC 576] and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024)

8 SCC 254], the Supreme Court has held that the requirement of

informing a person of the written grounds of arrest in writing is a

mandatory requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution

and Section 47 of the BNSS and absence of the same would

render the arrest illegal. Later in Vihaan Kumar v. State of

Haryana and Others (2025 SCC OnLine SC 269), it was reiterated

that the requirement of informing the person arrested of the

grounds of arrest is not a formality, but a mandatory

constitutional requirement. However, it was observed that there

is no mandatory requirement to communicate the grounds of

arrest in writing. Recently, in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of

Maharashtra and Another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356), the three-

Judge Bench of the Supreme Court after referring to all the three

2026:KER:10993

decisions mentioned above held that the 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. So

far as the cases under the NDPS Act are concerned, a Single

Bench of this Court in Yazin .S. v. State of Kerala (2025 KHC

OnLine 2383), Rayees R.M. v. State of Kerala (2025 KHC 2086),

and Vishnu N.P. v. State of Kerala (2025 KHC OnLine 1262) took

the view that the specification of the quantity of the contraband

seized is mandatory for the effective communication of the

grounds of arrest.

The learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued

that the notice informing the written grounds of arrest issued to

the applicant under Sections 47 and 35(1)(b)(ii) of the BNSS

does not contain the quantity of the contraband seized, and

therefore, the arrest was vitiated. Indeed, the said notice does

not mention the quantity of the contraband involved in the case.

However, it is relevant to note that no contraband was seized

from the possession of the applicant. The contraband was seized

from the possession of accused Nos.3 and 8. The specific

allegation against the applicant is that he supplied the

contraband involved in the case to accused Nos.3 and 8 from

Bangalore and stayed with them in a lodge at Bangalore. This

specific allegation against the applicant is clearly mentioned in

2026:KER:10993

the notice issued to him under Section 47 of the BNSS. The

ruling in Yazin (supra), Rayees (supra), and Vishnu (supra) that,

in crimes registered under the NDPS Act, communication of the

quantity of the contraband seized is mandatory, cannot be

interpreted to mean that it applies to all accused regardless of

their complicity in the crime. The specification of the quantity of

contraband seized needs to be communicated only to those

accused from whose possession the contraband was seized. As

for the other accused, from whom no contraband was seized but

who are otherwise involved in the crime, it is sufficient if their

role in the crime and the grounds for their arrest are

communicated to them. As already stated, the specific role of

the applicant in the crime and the detailed grounds for his arrest

are mentioned in the notice issued to him under Sections 47 and

35(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. Therefore, I find that there is

satisfactory compliance with Section 47 of the BNSS and Article

22(1) of the Constitution of India. The bail application is

accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE Rp

2026:KER:10993

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 12588 OF 2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 56/2025 OF KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.08.2025 IN BA NO. 9916 OF 2025 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.09.2025 IN BA NO. 11386 OF 2025 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.09.2025 IN BA NO. 11416 OF 2025 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT Annexure 5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.09.2025 IN BA NO. 11916 OF 2025 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT