[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sudin Lal,S/O. Ayyappan vs State Of Kerala on 27 January, 2026
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
B.A.No.14426/2025
1
2026:KER:6273
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 7TH MAGHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 14426 OF 2025
CRIME NO.542/2025 OF Vengara Police Station, Malappuram
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2025 IN CRMP NO.3602
OF 2025 OF SPECIAL COURT (ATROCITIES AGAINST SC/ST),
MANJERI
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 AND 2:
1 SUDIN LAL,S/O. AYYAPPAN, AGED 23 YEARS
ATHOLI HOUSE, KOTERIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
KODAKKALLU,KUTTOOR NORTH, TIRURANGADI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676306
2 AKSHAY M, AGED 23 YEARS
S/O. SASI MENGOLIMAD, MENGOLIMAD HOUSE,
KODAKKALLU, KUTTOOR NORTH, ABDU RAHIMAN NAGAR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676305
BY ADV SRI.K.RAKESH
RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
VENGARA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN
- 676304
SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD, SR. PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.14426/2025
2
2026:KER:6273
ORDER
This application is filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS),
seeking regular bail.
2. The applicants are the accused Nos. 1 and 2
in Crime No.542/2025 of Vengara Police Station, Malappuram
District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections
22(c) read with 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the NDPS Act).
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on
18.8.2025 from a place called 'Kooriyad', the applicants along
with the accused No.3 were found in possession of 54.08 gms
of MDMA inside a car bearing No.KL 65/H 2378.
4. I have heard Sri. K. Rakesh, the learned
counsel for the applicants and Sri. K.A. Noushad, the learned
Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the
applicants submitted that the requirement of informing the
arrested person of the grounds of arrest is mandatory under
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the
BNSS and inasmuch as the applicants were not furnished with
the grounds of arrest, their arrest was illegal and is liable to be
2026:KER:6273
released on bail. On the other hand, the learned Senior Public
Prosecutor submitted that all legal formalities were complied
with in accordance with Chapter V of the BNSS at the time of
the arrest of the applicants. It is further submitted that the
alleged incident occurred as part of the intentional criminal
acts of the applicants and hence they are not entitled to bail at
this stage.
6. The applicants were arrested on 18.8.2025
and since then they are in judicial custody.
7. Though prima facie there are materials on
record to connect the applicants with the crime, since the
applicants have raised a question of absence of communication
of the grounds of their arrest, let me consider the same.
8. Chapter V of BNSS, 2023 deals with the arrest
of persons. Sub-section (1) of Section 35 of BNSS lists cases
when police may arrest a person without a warrant. Section 47
of BNSS clearly states that every police officer or other person
arresting any person without a warrant shall forthwith
communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he
is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India provides that no person who is arrested
shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as
may be, of the grounds for such arrest. Thus, the requirement
2026:KER:6273
of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not
a formality but a mandatory statutory and constitutional
requirement. Noncompliance with Article 22(1) of the
Constitution will be a violation of the fundamental right of the
accused guaranteed by the said Article. It will also amount to a
violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article
21 of the Constitution.
9. The question whether failure to communicate
written grounds of arrest would render the arrest illegal,
necessitating the release of the accused, is no longer res
integra. The Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of
India and Others [(2024) 7 SCC 576], while dealing with
Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002,
has held that no person who is arrested shall be detained in
custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the
grounds for such arrest. It was further held that a copy of
written grounds of arrest should be furnished to the arrested
person as a matter of course and without exception. In Prabir
Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC 254],
while dealing with the offences under the Unlawful Activities
Prevention Act,1967 (for short, 'UAPA'), it was held that any
person arrested for an allegation of commission of offences
under the provisions of UAPA or for that matter any other
2026:KER:6273
offence(s) has a fundamental and a statutory right to be
informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a copy of
such written grounds of arrest has to be furnished to the
arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at
the earliest. It was observed that the right to be informed about
the grounds of arrest flows from Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India, and any infringement of this fundamental
right would vitiate the process of arrest and remand.
10. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and
Others (2025 SCC OnLine SC 269], the Supreme Court, while
dealing with the offences under IPC, reiterated that the
requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of
arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional
requirement. It was further held that if the grounds of arrest
are not informed, as soon as may be after the arrest, it would
amount to the violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee
guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, and the
arrest will be rendered illegal. It was also observed in the said
judgment that although there is no requirement to
communicate the grounds of arrest in writing, there is no harm
if the grounds of arrest are communicated in writing and when
arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the
requirements of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, the burden
2026:KER:6273
will always be on the Investigating Officer/Agency to prove
compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1).
11. In Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of
Andhra Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228), the Supreme
Court held that reading out the grounds of arrest stated in the
arrest warrant would tantamount to compliance of Art.22 of the
Constitution. It was further held that when an acused person is
arrested on warrant and it contains the reason for arrest, there
is no requirement to furnish the grounds for arrest separately
and a reading of the warrant to him itself is sufficient
compliance with the requirement of informing the grounds of
his arrest. In State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan (2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1702), it was held that neither the Constitution nor
the relevant statute prescribes a specific form or insists upon a
written communication in every case. Substantial compliance
of the same is sufficient unless demonstrable prejudice is
shown. It was further held that individualised grounds are not
an inflexible requirement post Bansal and absence of written
grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal unless it
results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of an opportunity to
defend. However, in Ahmed Mansoor v. State (2025 SCC
OnLine SC 2650), another two Judge Bench of the Supreme
Court distinguished the principles declared in Sri Darshan
2026:KER:6273
(supra) and observed that in Sri Darshan (supra), the facts
governing are quite different in the sense that it was a case
dealing with the cancellation of bail where the chargesheet had
been filed and the grounds of detention were served
immediately. Recently, in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of
Maharashtra and Another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356), the
three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that grounds of
arrest must be informed to the arrested person in each and
every case without exception and the mode of communication
of such grounds must be in writing in the language he
understands. It was further held that non supply of grounds of
arrest in writing to the arrestee prior to or immediately after
arrest would not vitiate such arrest provided said grounds are
supplied in writing within a reasonable time and in any case
two hours prior to the production of arrestee before the
Magistrate.
12. A Single Bench of this Court in Yazin S. v.
State of Kerala (2025 KHC OnLine 2383) and in Rayees R.M.
v. State of Kerala (2025 KHC 2086) held that in NDPS cases,
since the quantity of contraband determines whether the
offence is bailable or non bailable, specification of quantity is
mandatory for effective communication of grounds. It was
further held that burden is on the police to establish proper
2026:KER:6273
communication of the arrest. In Vishnu N.P. v. State of
Kerala (2025 KHC OnLine 1262), another Single Judge of this
Court relying on all the decisions of the Supreme Court
mentioned above specifically observed that the arrest
intimation must mention not only the penal section but also
the quantity of contraband allegedly seized.
13. The following principles of law emerge from
the above mentioned binding precedents.
(i) The constitutional mandate of informing the
arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences
under all statutes including offences under IPC/BNS.
(ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated
in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands.
(iii) In cases where the arresting officer/person is
unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing 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 the production of the arrestee
for the remand proceedings before the Magistrate.
(iv) In NDPS cases, specification of quantity of the
contraband seized is mandatory for effective communication of
grounds of arrest.
(v) In case of non compliance of the above, the
2026:KER:6273
arrest and the subsequent remand would be rendered illegal
and the arrestee should be set free forthwith.
(vi) The burden is on the police to establish the
proper communication of grounds of arrest.
(vii) The filing of charge sheet and cognizance of
the order cannot validate unconstitutional arrest.
14. I went through the case diary. It is noticed
that separate grounds of arrest were communicated to the
applicants as well as the relatives. However, there is no
reference to the quantity of the contraband seized from the
applicants in the arrest memo given to them, though it is
mentioned in the intimation given to the relatives. The
quantity of the contraband is necessary to be mentioned in the
arrest memo of the applicants since it enable them to identify
whether they are involved in a bailable or non bailable offence
or whether the quantity involved is a small, intermediary or
commercial quantity. Hence, the arrest of the applicants is
vitiated. The Jail Superintendent, Manjeri Sub Jail is directed to
release the applicants forthwith.
The bail application is disposed of as above
sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
kp
2026:KER:6273
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 14426 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.542/2025 OF THE VENGARA POLICE
STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT DATED 18-
8-2025
Annexure B A TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL APPLICATION
FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS
CRL.M.P.NO.3602/2025 BEFORE SPECIAL
COURT FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT & NDPS ACT
CASES, MANJERI DATED 28-10-2025
Annexure C A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28-11-
2025 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL COURT FOR
SC/ST (POA) ACT & NDPS ACT CASES,
MANJERI, IN CRL.M.P.NO.3602/2025
Annexure D A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN
B.A.NO.10487/2025 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT DATED, 9-9-2025
