[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Dishanth vs State Of Kerala on 10 February, 2026

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: Kauser Edappagath

                                                      2026:KER:11774

             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. 630 OF 2026

 CRIME NO.75/2025 OF PALAKKAD EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

         DISHANTH
         AGED 22 YEARS
         S/O. SHAJU V.K., VALIYARA HOUSE, ADATT, PUZHAKKAL
         VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680553

         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    EXCISE RANGE OFFICE PALAKKAD
         PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001

         SMT.SREEJA V., 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:11774
BAIL APPL. NO. 630 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 the sole accused in Crime No.75/2025

of Palakkad Excise Range Office, Palakkad District. 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 11.07.2025 at

04.15 p.m., on Salem - Kanyakumari NH-544, in front of Excise

Check Post at Walayar, the applicant was found in possession of

100.65 grams of MDMA while he was travelling in GSM Trans India

bus bearing registration No.NL-01-B-3155 which was from

Coimbatore to the Thrissur side. Thus, the applicant has

committed the aforementioned offence.

4. I have heard Sri.Sam Isaac Pothiyil, 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 submitted that

the applicant has been in custody since 11.07.2025, and the 2026:KER:11774 BAIL APPL. NO. 630 OF 2026

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 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 2026:KER:11774 BAIL APPL. NO. 630 OF 2026

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.

9. The case of the applicant is that the written grounds of

arrest were not intimated to his relative and hence the arrest 2026:KER:11774 BAIL APPL. NO. 630 OF 2026

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 the date of the

judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra). If the arrest is made 2026:KER:11774 BAIL APPL. NO. 630 OF 2026

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

NP 2026:KER:11774 BAIL APPL. NO. 630 OF 2026

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 630 OF 2026

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.01.2026 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT IN CRL.M.C NO.5190/2025 Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.01.2026 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT IN CRL.M.P NO. 1/2026 Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST MEMO DATED 11.07.2025 Annexure A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST INTIMATION DATED 11.07.2025