[Cites 19, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Sharuq Salim vs State Of Kerala on 27 January, 2026

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: Kauser Edappagath

                                                             2026:KER:6491


              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. 14296 OF 2025

     CRIME NO.449/2025 OF EDATHALA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

            SHARUQ SALIM
            AGED 28 YEARS, SON OF SALIM,
            THUMBARATH HOUSE VAYALKARA KUNNUKARA CHENGAMANAD
            ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683578

            BY ADVS.
            SHRI.AMALJITH C. ANU
            SRI.M.S.SARUN




RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

            STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
            PIN - 682031

            BY ADV.
            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:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 14296 OF 2025
                                        2
                                                                  2026:KER:6491


                                     ORDER

Dated this the 27th day of January, 2026

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.449/2025 of Edathala Police Station, Ernakulam

District. The offences alleged are punishable under

Sections 22(c), 29 and 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs

and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

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

10.05.2025 at about 04:15 pm, the applicant along with the

accused No.2 were found in possession of 58.73 grams of

MDMA and 27 grams of Ganja from room No.1004 of 1 st

floor of the Royal Enclave building near Manalimukku,

Edathala.

4. I have heard Sri. Amaljith C.Anu, the

learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. K.A.Noushad, the

learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the

applicant submitted that the requirement of informing the BAIL APPL. NO. 14296 OF 2025

2026:KER:6491

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 applicant was not

furnished with the grounds of arrest, his arrest was illegal

and is liable to be 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 applicant. It is

further submitted that the alleged incident occurred as part

of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant and hence

he is not entitled to bail at this stage.

6. The applicant was arrested on 10.05.2025

and since then he is in judicial custody.

7. 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.

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 BAIL APPL. NO. 14296 OF 2025

2026:KER:6491

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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 14296 OF 2025

2026:KER:6491

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 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. BAIL APPL. NO. 14296 OF 2025

2026:KER:6491

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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 14296 OF 2025

2026:KER:6491

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 (supra) and observed

that in Sri Darshan (supra), the facts governing are quite BAIL APPL. NO. 14296 OF 2025

2026:KER:6491

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 BAIL APPL. NO. 14296 OF 2025

2026:KER:6491

communication of grounds. It was further held that burden

is on the police to establish proper 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

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 BAIL APPL. NO. 14296 OF 2025

2026:KER:6491

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 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. On a perusal of case diary, it is noticed

that there is no reference to the quantity of the contraband

seized from the applicant. The nature of the contraband

also is not mentioned. The quantity of the contraband is

necessary to be mentioned since it enables the applicant to

identify whether he is involved in a bailable or non-bailable

offence or whether the quantity involved is in small,

intermediary or commercial quantity. In short, the grounds

of arrest were not communicated to the applicant in terms

of Section 47 of BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution BAIL APPL. NO. 14296 OF 2025

2026:KER:6491

of India. The applicant's arrest and his subsequent remand

are nonest 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 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.

BAIL APPL. NO. 14296 OF 2025

2026:KER:6491

(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 ARK BAIL APPL. NO. 14296 OF 2025

2026:KER:6491

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 14296 OF 2025