Ajith Kumar M.M vs State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 1924 Ker

Kerala High Court

Ajith Kumar M.M vs State Of Kerala on 23 February, 2026

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: Kauser Edappagath

                                                      2026:KER:15982

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

 MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1947

                     BAIL APPL. NO. 409 OF 2026

 CRIME NO.87/2025 OF PALAKKAD EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

         AJITH KUMAR M.M,
         AGED 24 YEARS
         SON OF MANI R., ANIL NIVAS HOUSE, KUPPADI DESOM,
         SULTHANBATHERY VILLAGE, SULTHANBATHERY TALUK,
         WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673592

         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


RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

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

    2    THE EXCISE INSPECTOR,
         EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD P.O,
         PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001

         SMT.SREEJA V, SR.PP


     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.02.2026,    THE    COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                       2026:KER:15982
BAIL APPL. NO. 409 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.87/2025

of Palakkad Excise Range Office, Palakkad District. The offence

alleged is punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS

Act').

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 04.08.2025 at

04.30 p.m. in front of the Excise Checkpost at Walayar, the

applicant was found in possession of 1.180 kilograms of hashish

oil while he was travelling in a bus by name 'Surya Connect'

bearing registration No.KL-41-W-2044 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 Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Senior Public

Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that 2026:KER:15982 BAIL APPL. NO. 409 OF 2026

the applicant has been in custody since 04.08.2025 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 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 this case, the perusal of the records would show that

the grounds of arrest were duly communicated to the arrestee.

However, admittedly, the grounds of arrest were not 2026:KER:15982 BAIL APPL. NO. 409 OF 2026

communicated to the relative of the applicant in writing.

According to the prosecution, the grounds of arrest were intimated

to the mother of the applicant in her mobile phone

No.7034902359. The learned counsel for the applicant on the last

posting date submitted that the said phone number does not

belong to the mother of the applicant. Hence, the investigating

officer was directed to get a statement from the mother of the

applicant and confirm her name as well as the phone number. The

learned Senior Public Prosecutor was directed to get instructions

as to in whose name the mobile phone No.7034902359 stands.

Accordingly, a report has been submitted today. It would show

that the said phone number stands in the name of one Smt.Lissy.

She is the friend of the applicant's mother. Her statement was

also recorded. It is stated in the said statement that the arrest

intimation was given to her in that number and it was also

intimated through WhatsApp. However, there is nothing on record

to show that she in turn informed the factum of arrest to the

applicant or his mother. Therefore, I am of the view that there is

no proper communication of the grounds of arrest to the relative

of the applicant. The Supreme Court in Kasireddy Upender

Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228) 2026:KER:15982 BAIL APPL. NO. 409 OF 2026

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, the arrest stands

vitiated 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 2026:KER:15982 BAIL APPL. NO. 409 OF 2026

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.

(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

NP 2026:KER:15982 BAIL APPL. NO. 409 OF 2026

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 409 OF 2026

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE CRIME AND OCCURRENCE REPORT IN CRIME NO. 87 OF 2025 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST MEMO IN CRIME NO. 87 OF 2025 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST INTIMATION IN CRIME NO. 87 OF 2025 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2025 IN CRL.M.C. NO.4840/2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SESSION; PALAKKAD DIVISION Annexure 5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.01.2026 IN CRL.M.P. NO.01/2026 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SESSION; PALAKKAD DIVISION