[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Noushad K vs State Of Kerala on 10 February, 2026
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
2026:KER:11775
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. 661 OF 2026
CRIME NO.1131/2025 OF KONDOTTY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
NOUSHAD K
AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. SHAIK MOIDEEN K,
KAMBRATHIKUZHI HOUSE, EDASSERIKUNNU, VAZHAKKAD,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 678574
SRI.SAM ISAAC POTHIYIL
SMT.S.SURAJA
SRI.MUHAMMED SUHAIR C.A
SMT.SINDURA SREENIVASAN
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
KONDOTTY POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673638
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:
2026:KER:11775
BAIL APPL. NO. 661 OF 2026
2
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 accused No.2 in Crime No.1131/2025
of Kondotty Police Station, Malappuram District. The offences
alleged are punishable under Sections 22(c) 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 05.10.2025 at
18.30 hours near Kannamvettikavu, Ambalakandi, Vallikad,
accused Nos.1 to 4 were found in possession of 152.64 grams of
MDMA and 0.65 grams of Ecstasy in a vehicle bearing registration
No.KL 84 D 3342 and thereby committed the aforesaid 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 submitted that
the applicant has been in custody since 05.10.2025, and the
grounds of arrest were not communicated in accordance with the
2026:KER:11775
BAIL APPL. NO. 661 OF 2026
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 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
2026:KER:11775
BAIL APPL. NO. 661 OF 2026
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.
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
2026:KER:11775
BAIL APPL. NO. 661 OF 2026
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 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
2026:KER:11775
BAIL APPL. NO. 661 OF 2026
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/-
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
NP
2026:KER:11775
BAIL APPL. NO. 661 OF 2026
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 661 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
31.12.2025 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL COURT
FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT & NDPS ACT CASES
MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT IN CRL.M.C
Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST MEMO OF THE
PETITIONER
