[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Muhammed Kabir vs State Of Kerala on 19 February, 2026
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
2026:KER:14963
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026/30TH MAGHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 625 OF 2026
CRIME NO.52/2026 OF KARIPUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED:
MUHAMMED KABIR
AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. MOIDEEN,
SADATH MANZIL, KARIPPUR, MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 673647
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SIDHARTH O.
SHRI.ANWIN JOHN ANTONY
SHRI.SUSANTH SHAJI
SHRI.ALBIN A. JOSEPH
SHRI.MOHAMMED ASIF P.
SMT.NEKHA VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KARIPUR POLICE STATION, EMEA COLLEGE AIRPORT ROAD, KARIPUR,
PALLIKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA,
PIN - 673638
BY ADV.
SRI.K.A. NOUSHAD, SR. PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.02.2026,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 625 OF 2026
2
2026:KER:14963
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.4 in
Crime No.52/2026 of Karipur Police Station, Malappuram
District. The offences alleged are punishable under Section
22(c) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the NDPS Act' for
short).
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on
22.01.2026 at about 06.50 a.m., acting on alleged
confidential information, the police intercepted accused
Nos.1 to 3 and recovered 1.480 grams of MDMA from the
possession of the accused No.1, and that upon questioning,
he disclosed that additional MDMA procured from another
accused had been kept for sale as per the instruction of the
applicant, pursuant to which the police recovered 39.110
grams of MDMA from the sunshade of a house situated in
the same compound as the applicant's residence, and it is
on the basis of such alleged disclosure and recovery that
BAIL APPL. NO. 625 OF 2026
2026:KER:14963
the applicant has been implicated for the offences under
Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.
4. I have heard Sri. Sidharth O., the learned
counsel for the applicant and Sri. K.A.Noushad, 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
22.01.2026 and the grounds of arrest were not
communicated in accordance with 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
of informing 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
BAIL APPL. NO. 625 OF 2026
2026:KER:14963
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] and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra
and Another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356).
8. In the instant case, the perusal of the
records show that the grounds of arrest were duly
communicated to the arrestee. However, the grounds of
arrest were not communicated to the relatives in writing. It
was communicated over phone only. Since the arrest is
after the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), the
communication in writing is necessary. 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
BAIL APPL. NO. 625 OF 2026
2026:KER:14963
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. Inasmuch as the
grounds of arrest were not communicated to the relatives
of the applicant in writing, the arrest stands vitiated and he
is entitled to be released on bail.
Hence, the Jail Superintendent, Special Sub Jail,
Kozhikode is directed to release the applicant forthwith.
The bail application stands allowed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
ARK
BAIL APPL. NO. 625 OF 2026
2026:KER:14963
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 625 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 52/2026 OF
KARIPUR POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2026 IN
CRL.M.P. NO. 02/2026 IN CRIME NO. 52/2026 OF
KARIPUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
ON THE FILES OF THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST
(POA) ACT & NDPS ACT CASES
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST MEMO DATED 22.01.2026
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST INTIMATION DATED
22.01.2026
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION MEMO DATED
22.01.2026
ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION
48 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA,
2023 DATED 22.01.2026
ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION
47 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA,
2023 DATED 22.01.2026
ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT DATED
23.01.2026
ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 50 OF
THE NDPS ACT DATED 22.01.2026
ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED
22.01.2026
