[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Muhammed Rufine vs State Of Kerala on 29 January, 2026
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
2026:KER:7228
1
BAIL APPL. NO. 13664 OF 2025
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. 13664 OF 2025
CRIME NO.906/2024 OF SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE STATION, WAYANAD
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2025 IN BAIL APPL.
NO.2851 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED ( IN CUSTODY FROM 22.10.2024):
MUHAMMED RUFINE
AGED 30 YEARS
KARIVARAVATTATH HOUSE, THRIKKALAGODE P.O ,
MANJERI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676123
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH
SRI.LIBIN STANLEY
SMT.SAIPOOJA
SRI.SADIK ISMAYIL
SMT.R.GAYATHRI
SRI.M.MAHIN HAMZA
SHRI.ALWIN JOSEPH
SHRI.BENSON AMBROSE
RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031
2026:KER:7228
2
BAIL APPL. NO. 13664 OF 2025
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
SULTHAN BATHERY, SULTHAN BATHERY P.O,
WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673592
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.M.C.ASHI, SR. PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:7228
3
BAIL APPL. NO. 13664 OF 2025
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. 906 of
2024 of Sulthan Bathery Police Station, Wayanad District. The
offence alleged is punishable under Section 22 (c) of Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 21.10.2024,
at about 08.50 p.m., the applicant herein was found in
possession of 68.92 grams of MDMA near the police check post
at Muthanga in contravention of the NDPS Act and Rules and
thereby committed the offence.
4. I have heard Sri.P.Mohamed Sabah, the learned
counsel for the applicant and Sri.M.C.Ashi, the learned Senior
Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant
2026:KER:7228
BAIL APPL. NO. 13664 OF 2025
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 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 22.10.2024 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
2026:KER:7228
BAIL APPL. NO. 13664 OF 2025
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 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
2026:KER:7228
BAIL APPL. NO. 13664 OF 2025
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 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
2026:KER:7228
BAIL APPL. NO. 13664 OF 2025
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 will always be on the Investigating
2026:KER:7228
BAIL APPL. NO. 13664 OF 2025
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
2026:KER:7228
BAIL APPL. NO. 13664 OF 2025
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 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
2026:KER:7228
BAIL APPL. NO. 13664 OF 2025
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
2026:KER:7228
BAIL APPL. NO. 13664 OF 2025
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 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.
2026:KER:7228
BAIL APPL. NO. 13664 OF 2025
(vii) The filing of charge sheet and cognizance of the order
cannot validate unconstitutional arrest.
14. I went through the case diary. On perusal of the case
diary it is noticed that separate grounds of arrest were
communicated to the applicant. However, except for mentioning
that the arrest was for illegal possession of a narcotic drug, there
is no reference to the quantity of the contraband seized from the
applicant. 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 a small, intermediate or commercial
quantity. 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
2026:KER:7228
BAIL APPL. NO. 13664 OF 2025
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.
(vii) The application, if any, for deletion/modification of the
2026:KER:7228
BAIL APPL. NO. 13664 OF 2025
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
AS
2026:KER:7228
BAIL APPL. NO. 13664 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 13664 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05-03-2025
IN BAIL APPL.2851/2025 ON HIGH COURT
ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04-07-2025
IN BAIL APPL.7162/2025 ON HIGH COURT
ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT IN CRIME NO. 906 OF 2024 OF
SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE STATION, WAYANAD
DISTRICT
ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR IN
CRIME NO. 906 OF 2024 OF SULTHAN BATHERY
POLICE STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT
