[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Satheesh @ Unni vs State Of Kerala on 26 February, 2026
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
2026:KER:17249
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 14576 OF 2025
CRIME NO.5/2021 OF KATTAKKADA EXCISE RANGE OFFICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.9:
SATHEESH @ UNNI,
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. SIMON, PARAVILAKATHU VEEDU,
PANAYAMKODU,KATTAKADA P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695572.
BY ADVS.
SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR
SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL
SRI.P.RAJKUMAR
SRI.KESHAVRAJ NAIR
SHRI.BIJU VIGNESWAR
SHRI.ARUN POOMULLI
SMT.MEERA JOPPAN
SHRI.ABHIRAM.S.
SMT.GAADHA SURESH
SHRI.VISWANATH JAYAN
SMT.AKHILA RADHAKRISHNAN
SHRI.AKSHAY SHIBU
SHRI.ANANTHAPADMANABHAN
SHRI.ASHISH PAUL
SMT.LAXMISREE JAYANTHA KUMAR
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.
SRI.K.A. NOUSHAD, SR. PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.NO.14576 OF 2025 2
2026:KER:17249
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.9 in Crime
No.05/2021 of Kattakkada Excise Range Office,
Thiruvananthapuram District. The offences alleged are punishable
under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 27A, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on
30.09.2021, the Excise Circle Inspector, Neyyattinkara, conducted
a search at the residence of the accused No.1 and seized 187 kg
of Ganja. It is further alleged that, during the subsequent
investigation, a conspiracy involving the other accused was
revealed, and the Investigating Officer concluded that the accused
persons had conspired together to transport the contraband
substance, ganja, from Andhra Pradesh to Kerala for the purpose
of sale. It is also alleged that subsequently, 59 kg of ganja was
recovered from a quarry near Manali Junction. After completing
the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the final report
2026:KER:17249
arraying a total of 12 accused. At the time of filing the final report,
accused Nos. 9 and 10 had not been arrested and were shown as
absconding. Thus, the applicant committed the above offences.
4. I have heard Sri.Renjith B. Marar, 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 06.07.2024 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) [(2024)
2026:KER:17249
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 formal arrest of the applicant
was recorded, and hence there is no necessity to communicate
the grounds of arrest. Admittedly, the grounds of arrest have not
been communicated to the relative 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, the arrest stands
vitiated and he is entitled to be released on bail.
2026:KER:17249
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:17249
(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:17249
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 14576 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE OCCURRENCE REPORT IN
NDPS CRIME NO. 05 OF 2021 OF EXCISE
RANGE OFFICE, KATTAKADA.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT U/S. 36(A)(1)
(D) OF THE NDPS ACT PREFERRED BEFORE THE
LEARNED TRIAL COURT.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.08.2025
IN CRL. M. P. NO. 2919/2025 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION
COURT - II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.12.2025
IN CRL. M. P. NO. 4693/2025 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION
COURT - II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
