[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Shameem vs State Of Kerala on 12 February, 2026
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
2026:KER:12815
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 23RD MAGHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 723 OF 2026
CRIME NO.1578/2025 OF SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE STATION,
WAYANAD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SHAMEEM,
AGED 33 YEARS
KAITHAVALAPPIL HOUSE, WEST VILLOOR, INDIANOOR,
KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676503
SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH
SRI.LIBIN STANLEY
SMT.SAIPOOJA
SRI.SADIK ISMAYIL
SMT.R.GAYATHRI
SRI.M.MAHIN HAMZA
SRI.ALWIN JOSEPH
SRI.BENSON AMBROSE
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE STATION,
WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673592
SRI.M.C. ASHI, SR. PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:12815
BAIL APPL. NO. 723 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.1578/2025 of Sulthan Bathery Police Station, Wayanad
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 22.11.2025 at
about 10.15 a.m., the applicant was found in possession and
transportation of 95.93 grams of MDMA in a car bearing
registration no.KL-65N-6229 near Muthanga Police Check Post at
Noolpuzha Amsom in contravention of the NDPS Act and Rules and
thereby committed the aforementioned offence.
4. I have heard Sri.P.Mohamed Sabah, the learned counsel
for the applicant and Sri.M.C.Ashi, 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
2026:KER:12815
BAIL APPL. NO. 723 OF 2026
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 22.11.2025 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 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
2026:KER:12815
BAIL APPL. NO. 723 OF 2026
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.
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
2026:KER:12815
BAIL APPL. NO. 723 OF 2026
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
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)
2026:KER:12815
BAIL APPL. NO. 723 OF 2026
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 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
2026:KER:12815
BAIL APPL. NO. 723 OF 2026
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
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
2026:KER:12815
BAIL APPL. NO. 723 OF 2026
the Magistrate.
12. A Single Bench of this Court in Yazin S. 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.
(iii) In cases where the arresting officer/person is unable to
2026:KER:12815
BAIL APPL. NO. 723 OF 2026
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. I went through the case diary. The learned counsel for
the applicant submitted that the grounds of arrest were not
intimated to the relative in writing and since the arrest was after
the decision of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), the arrest is vitiated.
However, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor invited my
attention to the remand report. It would show that even though
2026:KER:12815
BAIL APPL. NO. 723 OF 2026
the relative was asked over the phone to appear before the
arresting officer, he expressed his unwillingness to appear.
Accordingly, the grounds of arrest were intimated to him through
a WhatsApp message. Hence, I am of the view that there is
substantial compliance. 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:12815
BAIL APPL. NO. 723 OF 2026
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 723 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT DATED
22.11.2025 OF THE PETITIONER IN CRIME
NO. 1578/2025 OF SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE
STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT
Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED
22.11.2025 OF THE PETITIONER IN CRIME
NO. 1578/2025 OF SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE
STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT
Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST MEMO OF THE
PETITIONER IN CRIME NO. 1578/2025 OF
SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE STATION, WAYANAD
DISTRICT
Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 47
(1) OF BNSS GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER IN
CRIME NO. 1578/2025 OF SULTHAN BATHERY
POLICE STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT
Annexure 5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2026
IN CRL.M.C NO.981/2025 PASSED BY THE
HONOURABLE SPECIAL COURT FOR NDPS ACT
CASES, KALPETTA, WAYANAD
