[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Tharis vs State Of Kerala on 20 January, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2026:KER:5443
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 30TH POUSHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 10960 OF 2025
CRIME NO.709/2025 OF Pudukkad Police Station, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 04.10.2025 IN CRMP NO.5350
OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE
AUTHORITY, THRISSUR
PETITIONER/S:
1 THARIS,
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O SIDHIQ, PALLATH HOUSE, ALENGAD P O, MAMBRA DESOM,
KARUMALLOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -
683511
2 ASHILIN,
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O SHAJI, CHEENAVILA HOUSE, KOTTAPPURAM P O, ALENGADU
DESOM, ALENGAD VILLAGE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN
- 683511
BY ADV SRI.LIFFY P. FRANCIS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, HIGH COURT P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
PUTHUKKAD POLICE STATION, PUTHUKKAD P O, THRISSUR, PIN
- 680301
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP SMT SREEJA V
2026:KER:5443
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:5443
C.S.DIAS, J.
----------------------------------------
Crl. M.C No. 10960 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of January, 2026
ORDER
The petitioners are accused 2 and 4 in Crime No.
709/2025 registered by the Pudukkadu Police Station,
Thrissur, alleging the commission of offences punishable
under Sections 20 (b) (ii) (C), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. The crux of the prosecution case is that on
23.05.2025, at 05:15 am, the Detecting Officer found the
accused 1 to 4 in conscious possession of 125 kilograms
of ganja, which was being transported in a lorry bearing
registration no. KL-42-X-3218 in contravention to the
provisions of the Act.
3. The petitioner has contended in the Crl.M.C
that they are totally innocent of the allegations levelled
against them. There are no material to substantiate their
culpability in the crime. The Investigating Officer had not
2026:KER:5443
furnished the grounds of arrest to the petitioner.
Accordingly, they filed B.A. No. 10181/2025 before this
Court. By Annexure A2 order, this Court found that the
Investigating Officer had failed to furnish the grounds of
arrest and following the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar v. State of
Haryana (AIR 2025 SC 1388) and the law laid down by
this Court in Shahina v. State of Kerala (2025 KHC
Online 706), this Court directed the Superintendent of
District Jail, Viyyur, to release the petitioners
immediately. As soon as the petitioners were released
from jail, the Investigating Officer took the petitioners to
the Pudukkad Police Station and arrested them.
Although the petitioners filed an application for bail
before the Court of Session, Thrissur, by Annexure A3
order, their application was dismissed. The arrest of
petitioners is an infringement of their constitutional right
guaranteed by Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of
India. Therefore, Annexure A3 order may be granted and
the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.
2026:KER:5443
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners
reiterated the contentions in the Crl.M.C and relied on
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mihir
Rajesh Shah v. The State Of Maharashtra, [2025 INSC
1288], to canvas the position that once the an accused is
released and, thereafter, when the grounds of arrest are
supplied to him, he can be rearrested only after setting
forth the explanation for the non-supply thereof, and the
magistrate has to decide the application after adhering
to principles of natural justice. The learned counsel
contends that none of the above principles were adhered
to by the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
Crl.M.C. She submitted that, subsequent to the release
of the petitioner as per Annexure A2 order, they were
produced before the Jurisdictional Court, who in turn
remanded the petitioners to the judicial custody. After
2026:KER:5443
that, the petitioners filed the bail application before the
Court of Session. By Annexure A3 order, the learned
Sessions Judge categorically found that there was no
violation of the legal mandate under Section 47 of the
BNSS or Article 22 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly the bail application was dismissed. The
petitioners cannot challenge the said order through this
Crl.M.C. The petitioners' remedy is to either file a fresh
application for bail in case there is any change of
circumstances or file a fresh application for bail before
this Court. There is no error in Annexure A3 order.
Hence, the Crl.M.C may be dismissed.
7. By Annexure A2 order, this Court, on finding
that the petitioners were not furnished with grounds of
arrest, which is in violation of the law laid down in the
Vihaan Kumar's and Shahina's cases (supra), directed
the Superintendent of District Jail to release the
petitioners forthwith. In the Mihir Rajesh Shah's case
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
2026:KER:5443
"55. It goes without saying that if the above-said
schedule for supplying the grounds of arrest in writing is not
adhered to, the arrest will be rendered illegal, entitling the
release of the arrestee. On such release, an application for
remand or custody, if required, will be moved along with the
reasons and necessity for the same, after the supply of the
grounds of arrest in writing setting forth the explanation for non-
supply thereof within the above stipulated schedule. On receipt of
such an application, the magistrate shall decide the same
expeditiously and preferably within a week of submission thereof
by adhering to the principles of natural justice.
56. In conclusion, it is held that:
i) The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee of
the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all
statutes, including offences under IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023);
ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in
writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands;
iii) In case(s) where the arresting officer/person is unable
to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after
arrest, it be so done orally. The said grounds be communicated in
writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two
hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings
before the magistrate.
iv) In case of non-compliance with the above, the arrest
and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal, and the
person will be at liberty to be set free."
8. Consequent to the directions of this Court, the
Investigating Officer had produced the petitioners before
the learned Sessions Judge after supplying them the
grounds of arrest. Based on the above arrest memo, the
learned Sessions Judge remanded the petitioner to
judicial custody. After that the petitioners filed Crl.M.P.
No. 5350/2025 to enlarge them on bail.
2026:KER:5443
9. By Annexure A3 order, the learned Sessions
Judge found that the Arresting Officer had complied with
the legal mandate under Section 47 of the BNSS and
Article 22 of the Constitution of India, and that there are
reasonable grounds to hold that the petitioners have
committed the offences and they are likely to commit the
offences in the future if they are enlarged on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed.
10. The petitioners now contend that they were
not furnished with the grounds of arrest and that they
were not afforded an opportunity of being heard. I am
unable to accept the said contention because the above
contentions were raised before the learned Sessions
Judge and were found against the petitioners. Therefore,
I hold that the petitioners cannot re-agitate a concluded
issue through this Crl.M.C. The said findings are binding
on the petitioners. The Crl.M.C is devoid of any merits
and is only liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I dismiss
the Crl.M.C, but by reserving the right of the petitioners
2026:KER:5443
to work out their remedies in accordance with the law.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
Srs/20.01.2026
2026:KER:5443
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 10960 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN
CRIME NO. 709/2025 OF PUDUKKAD POLICE
STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT DATED 23.5.2025
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.09.2025 IN
BAIL APPL. NO.10181/2025 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
Annexure A3 FREE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.10.2025 IN
CRL.M.P. NO.5350/2025 BY THE SESSIONS COURT,
THRISSUR
