Shefeeque vs State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 1432 Ker

Kerala High Court

Shefeeque vs State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2026

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: Kauser Edappagath

                                                            2026:KER:12382


                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

         WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026/22ND MAGHA, 1947

                        BAIL APPL. NO. 525 OF 2026

           CRIME NO.708/2025 OF VYTHIRI POLICE STATION, WAYANAD


PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 (IN CUSTODY FROM 26.07.2025):

            SHEFEEQUE,
            AGED 30 YEARS, SON OF SIDDIQUE,
            EDAKKANDATHIL, NANNAMBRAM, CHERUMUKKU P.O., TIRURANGADI,
            MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
            PIN - 676306

            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 & COMPLAINANT:

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

     2      THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
            VYTHIRI POLICE STATION, VYTHIRI P.O.,
            WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673576

            BY ADV.
            SRI.K.A. NOUSHAD, SR. PP

     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.02.2026,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 525 OF 2026
                                            2
                                                                       2026:KER:12382


                                       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.708/2025 of Vythiri Police Station, Wayanad

District. The offences alleged are punishable under

Sections 22(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that, on

25.07.2025 at 10:30 a.m., while the police were

conducting a vehicle check opposite Wilton Anna Bhavan

Hotel at Lakkidi, the applicant, who was travelling from the

Kozhikode region to Vythiri region in a car bearing

registration number KL-71K-3883, was intercepted by the

police, but it fled the scene. Subsequently, the police

recovered 20.35 grams of methamphetamine from the car.

Thereafter, the applicant was arrested on 26.07.2025.

Thus, the applicant is alleged to have committed the

aforementioned offences.

BAIL APPL. NO. 525 OF 2026

2026:KER:12382

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 inasmuch as the applicant was not

furnished with the grounds of arrest, his arrest was illegal

and is liable to be released on bail. On the other hand, the

learned Senior 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 26.07.2025

and since then he is 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 525 OF 2026

2026:KER:12382

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 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.

BAIL APPL. NO. 525 OF 2026

2026:KER:12382

9. The question whether failure to

communicate written grounds of arrest would render the

arrest illegal, necessitating the release of the accused, is

no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in Pankaj

Bansal v. Union of India and Others [(2024) 7 SCC

576], while dealing with Section 19 of the Prevention of

Money Laundering Act, 2002, has held 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. It was further held that a copy of written grounds of

arrest should be furnished to the arrested person as a

matter of course and without exception. In Prabir

Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC 254],

while dealing with the offences under the Unlawful

Activities Prevention Act,1967 (for short, 'UAPA'), it was

held that any person arrested for an allegation of

commission of offences under the provisions of UAPA or for

that matter any other offence(s) has a fundamental and a

statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest

in writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest has

to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of BAIL APPL. NO. 525 OF 2026

2026:KER:12382

course and without exception at the earliest. It was

observed that the right to be informed about the grounds

of arrest flows from Article 22(1) of the Constitution of

India, and any infringement of this fundamental right would

vitiate the process of arrest and remand.

10. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana

and Others (2025 SCC OnLine SC 269], the Supreme

Court, while dealing with the offences under IPC, reiterated

that the requirement of informing the person arrested of

the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory

constitutional requirement. It was further held that if the

grounds of arrest are not informed, as soon as may be after

the arrest, it would amount to the violation of the

fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article

22(1) of the Constitution, and the arrest will be rendered

illegal. It was also observed in the said judgment that

although there is no requirement to communicate the

grounds of arrest in writing, there is no harm if the grounds

of arrest are communicated in writing and when arrested

accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of

Article 22(1) of the Constitution, the burden will always be BAIL APPL. NO. 525 OF 2026

2026:KER:12382

on the Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance

with the requirements of Article 22(1).

11. In Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State

of Andhra Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228), the

Supreme Court held that reading out the grounds of arrest

stated in the arrest warrant would tantamount to

compliance of Art.22 of the Constitution. It was further held

that when an acused person is arrested on warrant and it

contains the reason for arrest, there is no requirement to

furnish the grounds for arrest separately and a reading of

the warrant to him itself is sufficient compliance with the

requirement of informing the grounds of his arrest. In

State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan (2025 SCC OnLine SC

1702), it was held that neither the Constitution nor the

relevant statute prescribes a specific form or insists upon a

written communication in every case. Substantial

compliance of the same is sufficient unless demonstrable

prejudice is shown. It was further held that individualised

grounds are not an inflexible requirement post Bansal and

absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the

arrest illegal unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or BAIL APPL. NO. 525 OF 2026

2026:KER:12382

denial of an opportunity to defend. However, in Ahmed

Mansoor v. State (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2650), another

two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court distinguished the

principles declared in Sri Darshan (supra) and observed

that in Sri Darshan (supra), the facts governing are quite

different in the sense that it was a case dealing with the

cancellation of bail where the chargesheet had been filed

and the grounds of detention were served immediately.

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 each and 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 prior

to 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 prior to the

production of arrestee before the Magistrate.

12. A Single Bench of this Court in Yazin S. BAIL APPL. NO. 525 OF 2026

2026:KER:12382

v. State of Kerala (2025 KHC OnLine 2383) and in

Rayees R.M. v. State of Kerala (2025 KHC 2086) held

that in NDPS cases, since the quantity of contraband

determines whether the offence is bailable or non bailable,

specification of quantity is mandatory for effective

communication of grounds. It was further held that burden

is on the police to establish proper communication of the

arrest. In Vishnu N.P. v. State of Kerala (2025 KHC

OnLine 1262), another Single Judge of this Court relying on

all the decisions of the Supreme Court mentioned above

specifically observed that the arrest intimation must

mention not only the penal section but also the quantity of

contraband allegedly seized.

13. The following principles of law emerge

from the above mentioned binding precedents.

(i) The constitutional mandate of informing the

arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences

under all statutes including offences under IPC/BNS.

(ii) The grounds of arrest must be

communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he

understands.

BAIL APPL. NO. 525 OF 2026

2026:KER:12382

(iii) In cases where the arresting officer/person is

unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing

soon after arrest, it be so done orally. The said grounds be

communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in

any case at least two hours prior to the production of the

arrestee for the remand proceedings before the Magistrate.

(iv) In NDPS cases, specification of quantity of

the contraband seized is mandatory for effective

communication of grounds of arrest.

(v) In case of non compliance of the above,

the arrest and the subsequent remand would be rendered

illegal and the arrestee should be set free forthwith.

(vi) The burden is on the police to establish

the proper communication of grounds of arrest.

(vii) The filing of charge sheet and cognizance

of the order cannot validate unconstitutional arrest.

14. On a perusal of the case diary, it is

noticed that separate grounds of arrest were

communicated to the applicant as well as to the relative.

However, except mentioning that arrest is for illegal

possession of the narcotic drug, there is no reference to the BAIL APPL. NO. 525 OF 2026

2026:KER:12382

quantity of the contraband seized from the applicant.

Hence, I hold that the requirement of Article 22(1) of the

Constitution and Section 47 of BNSS have not been

satisfied. Therefore, applicant's arrest and his subsequent

remand are nonest and he is entitled to be released on bail.

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 BAIL APPL. NO. 525 OF 2026

2026:KER:12382

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.

(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. 525 OF 2026

2026:KER:12382

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 525 OF 2026

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 708/2025 OF VYTHIRI POLICE STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT

ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.01.2026 IN CRL.M.P. NO.01/2026 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS ACT CASES/ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-II, KALPETTA, WAYANAD