[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Krishnamoorthy vs State Of Kerala on 24 February, 2026
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
2026:KER:16614
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 5TH PHALGUNA,
1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 359 OF 2026
CRIME NO.395/2025 OF PANAMARAM POLICE STATION, WAYANAD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
KRISHNAMOORTHY,
AGED 49 YEARS
MULANCHIRA HOUSE, THELAMPATTAPO, SULTHANBATHERY,
PIN - 673592.
BY ADV SRI.VISHNUPRASAD NAIR
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.
SMT.SREEJA V. Sr. PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.NO. 359 OF 2026 2
2026:KER:16614
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.1 in Crime
No.395/2025 of Panamaram Police Station, Wayanad District.
The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 376(2)(n)
and 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 9 of the
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, Section 75 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and
Section 3(a) r/w 4(2), Sections 5(j)(ii) & (1) r/w 6(1), 16(3) r/w
17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the
applicant No.1 had repeatedly committed rape/penetrative
sexual assault on the defacto complainant, aged 14 years, with
the knowledge and assistance of accused No.2, who is the
mother, having actual control and charge over the survivor and
duty bound to protect her, and accused No.3 between
01.06.2023 and 31.03.2024 from his flat at Karimbummal in
Panamaram amsom and from the survivor's house, following
which she became pregnant and gave birth to a baby boy on a
2026:KER:16614
day in the month of November 2024. Thus, the applicant
committed the offences alleged.
4. I have heard Sri.Vishnuprasad Nair, 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
08.06.2025 and the grounds of arrest were not communicated
in accordance with law at the time of his arrest. The learned
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)
2026:KER:16614
[(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 communicated to
the arrestee, but they were not communicated to the near
relatives. 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,
the arrest stands vitiated and he is entitled to be released on
bail.
2026:KER:16614
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.
(vi) The applicant shall not leave the State of
Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.
2026:KER:16614
(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
mea
2026:KER:16614
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 359 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 A COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IS CRIME
NUMBER 395/2025 OF THE PANAVARAM POLICE
STATION DATED 02/06/2025
Annexure 2 A COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NUMBER 395/2025 OF THE PANAVARAM POLICE
STATION
Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
26/11/2025
