Sakeer K.P vs State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 831 Ker

Kerala High Court

Sakeer K.P vs State Of Kerala on 29 January, 2026

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: Kauser Edappagath

B.A.No. 99 of 2026

                                ..1..

                                                   2026:KER:7283


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

   THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 9TH MAGHA, 1947

                     BAIL APPL. NO. 99 OF 2026

  CRIME NO.324/2023 OF AMBALATHARA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD
 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.09.2024 IN BAIL APPL. NO.6802 OF
                 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

           SAKEER K.P
           AGED 34 YEARS, S/O ABDULLA KUNHI,
           EROLE HOUSE, CHATTAMCHAL,
           THEKKIL VILLAGE,
           KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671541

           BY ADVS.
           SRI.SAM ISAAC POTHIYIL
           SMT.S.SURAJA
           SHRI.MUHAMMED SUHAIR C.A
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

     1     STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
           HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
           ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

     2     THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
           AMBALATHARA POLICE STATION,
           KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671316

           SMT.SREEJA V., SR. PP

     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 B.A.No. 99 of 2026

                                  ..2..

                                                             2026:KER:7283


                             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 sole accused in Crime No.324/2023

of Ambalathara Police Station, Kasaragod District. The offence

alleged is punishable under Sections 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs

and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 26.07.2023 at

around 13:10 hours, the applicant was found in possession of 0.1

grams of LSD Stamp in the dashboard of a vehicle, Alto car

bearing registration number KL-14-T-9294 and thereby committed

the offence.

4. I have heard Sri.Sam Isaac Pothiyil, the learned counsel

for the applicant and Smt.V.Sreeja, the learned Senior Public

Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant

submitted that the requirement of informing the arrested person of

the grounds of arrest is mandatory under Article 22(1) of the

..3..

2026:KER:7283

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 26.07.2023 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 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

..4..

2026:KER:7283

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 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

..5..

2026:KER:7283

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.

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

..6..

2026:KER:7283

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 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

..7..

2026:KER:7283

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 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

..8..

2026:KER:7283

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 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

..9..

2026:KER:7283

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 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.

..10..

2026:KER:7283

14. I went through the case diary. Annexure A6 is the arrest

memo given to the applicant. The grounds of arrest have not been

mentioned in the said document. There is also no reference to the

quantity of the contraband seized from the applicant. In the

intimation given to the wife of the applicant also, grounds of arrest

as well as the quantity seized from the applicant have not been

mentioned. Hence, I hold that the requirement of Article 22(1) of

the Constitution and Section 47 of BNSS have not been satisfied.

Therefore, 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

..11..

2026:KER:7283

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.

(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 APA

..12..

2026:KER:7283

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 99 OF 2026

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.06.2024 IN B.A.NO. 1820 OF 2024 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.09.2024 IN B.A.NO. 6802 OF 2024 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT ANNEXURE A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 18.03.2025 IN B.A.NO.

ANNEXURE A4 ORDER DATED 29-04-2025 IN BAIL APPL.5241/2025 ON HIGH COURT ANNEXURE A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.12.2025 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT KASARAGOD IN CRL.M.P NO

ANNEXURE A6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST MEMO OF THE PETITIONER