Basheer Thaliyil vs State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 1802 Ker

Kerala High Court

Basheer Thaliyil vs State Of Kerala on 19 February, 2026

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: Kauser Edappagath

                                                           2026:KER:14938


                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. 828 OF 2026

         CRIME NO.52/2026 OF KARIPUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM


PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5 (IN CUSTODY FROM 23.01.2026):

            BASHEER THALIYIL,
            AGED 53 YEARS, SON OF MOIDU,
            THALIYIL, KUTTIADI, KAYAKKODI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
            PIN - 673508

            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 DISTRICT,
            PIN - 682031

     2      THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
            KARIPUR POLICE STATION, EMEA COLLEGE AIRPORT ROAD,
            PALLIKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673638

            BY ADV.
            SMT.SREEJA V., 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. 828 OF 2026
                                            2
                                                                     2026:KER:14938


                                       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.5 in

Crime No.52/2026 of Karipur Police Station, Malappuram

District. The offences alleged are punishable under

Sections 22(c) and 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., at Pulikkal Amsom,

Karipur Desom, in a quarters located upstairs in the

building wherein the Karipur CPM Branch Committee Office

is situated, the accused No.1 was found in possession of

1.480 grams of MDMA. Further, the accused Nos.1 to 3

were found in possession of 39.110 grams of MDMA, which

was concealed in the sunshade of a building named

Achappas Villa within the same compound, intended for

sale. This MDMA was procured from the applicant for the

purpose of supplying to accused No.4. In total, 40.590 BAIL APPL. NO. 828 OF 2026

2026:KER:14938

grams of MDMA was recovered from the location, thereby

the applicant committed aforementioned offences.

4. I have heard Sri. P.Mohamed Sabah, 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

23.01.2026 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. 828 OF 2026

2026:KER:14938

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 intimated to the relative in writing.

Admittedly, the relative was intimated over phone only.

Since the arrest is after the judgment in Mihir Rajesh

Shah (supra), the communication in writing is mandatory.

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 BAIL APPL. NO. 828 OF 2026

2026:KER:14938

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. 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, District Jail, Manjeri

is directed to release the applicant forthwith. The bail

application stands allowed.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE ARK BAIL APPL. NO. 828 OF 2026

2026:KER:14938

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 828 OF 2026

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 52/2026 OF KARIPUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT