Niyas vs State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 1803 Ker

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1803 Ker
Judgement Date : 19 February, 2026

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Niyas vs State Of Kerala on 19 February, 2026

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: Kauser Edappagath

                                                             2026:KER:14906


              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. 878 OF 2026

   CRIME NO.49/2024 OF CHAVAKKAD EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, THRISSUR

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.02.2026 IN BAIL APPL. NO.320 OF 2026

                       OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:

            NIYAS
            AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.MAJEED,
            VALIYAKATHU HOUSE, ANDATHODE P.O, CHAVAKKAD TALUK,
            THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 679564

            BY ADV SRI.VIVEK VENUGOPAL


RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT-STATE:

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

            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. 878 OF 2026
                                        2
                                                              2026:KER:14906


                                   ORDER

This is the second bail application filed under

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

2023 (for short, BNSS), seeking regular bail.

2. The applicant is the accused No.3 in

Crime No.49/2024 of Excise Range Office, Chavakkad,

Thrissur District. The offences alleged are punishable under

Sections 20(b)(ii)(B), 20(b)(ii)(C), 29 and 60(3) of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

('the NDPS Act' for short).

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

05.10.2024 at 04:25 a.m., the applicant was found in

possession of 18.275 kgs of ganja and 1.994 kgs of hashish

oil in contravention of the NDPS Act and Rules and thereby

committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri. Vivek Venugopal, 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

05.10.2024 and the grounds of arrest were not BAIL APPL. NO. 878 OF 2026

2026:KER:14906

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

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 have been BAIL APPL. NO. 878 OF 2026

2026:KER:14906

communicated to the arrestee properly. However, in the

intimation given to the relative of the applicant, there was

no proper communication of the grounds of arrest including

the quantity of the contraband seized from the possession

of the applicant. 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. Inasmuch as the grounds of arrest were not

communicated to the relatives of the applicant in

accordance with law, the arrest stands vitiated and he is

entitled to be released on bail.

BAIL APPL. NO. 878 OF 2026

2026:KER:14906

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

other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the

evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons

related to the investigation.