[Cites 20, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Labeeb vs State Of Kerala on 29 January, 2026
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
2026:KER:7290
1
BAIL APPL. NO. 14872 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. 14872 OF 2025
CRIME NO.20/2025 OF PARAPPANANGADI EXCISE RANGE OFFICE,
MALAPPURAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2 ( IN CUSTODY FROM
29.03.2025):
1 LABEEB
AGED 21 YEARS
CHALIL HOUSE, COMPANYMUKKU DESOM,
NARIPPTTA VILLAGE, VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673506
2 MUHAMMED ALI
AGED 28 YEARS
ELAYADATHU HOUSE, NAMBITHANKUNDU DESOM,
NARIPPTTA VILLAGE, VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673506
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
2026:KER:7290
2
BAIL APPL. NO. 14872 OF 2025
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 682031
2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
MALAPPURAM, CIVIL STATION,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 676505
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:7290
3
BAIL APPL. NO. 14872 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 applicants are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime
No.20/2025 of Excise Range Office, Parappanangadi,
Malappuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under
Sections 22(c), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 29.03.2025
at about 08:15 a.m., the applicants were found in possession of
330 grams of methamphetamine in a car bearing registration
No. KL-58Y-4952, which was parked under the bridge at
Kadalundy kadavu in contravention of the NDPS Act and Rules
and thereby committed the offences.
4. I have heard Sri.P.Mohamed Sabah, the learned
counsel for the applicants and Sri.M.C.Ashi, the learned Senior
2026:KER:7290
BAIL APPL. NO. 14872 OF 2025
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
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 they
are not entitled to bail at this stage.
6. The applicants were arrested on 29.03.2025 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
2026:KER:7290
BAIL APPL. NO. 14872 OF 2025
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 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.
2026:KER:7290
BAIL APPL. NO. 14872 OF 2025
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 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
2026:KER:7290
BAIL APPL. NO. 14872 OF 2025
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
2026:KER:7290
BAIL APPL. NO. 14872 OF 2025
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 held that neither the Constitution
nor the relevant statute prescribes a specific form or insists upon
a written communication in every case. Substantial compliance
2026:KER:7290
BAIL APPL. NO. 14872 OF 2025
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
2026:KER:7290
BAIL APPL. NO. 14872 OF 2025
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 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.
2026:KER:7290
BAIL APPL. NO. 14872 OF 2025
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 they 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
2026:KER:7290
BAIL APPL. NO. 14872 OF 2025
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.
I went through the case diary as well as the documents
produced along with the bail application. Annexures 2 and 3 are
the arrest intimations given to the applicants in compliance with
Section 47 of BNSS, which would show that at time of their
arrest, the specific grounds, reason for arrest and the quantity of
the contraband seized were communicated to them. Annexure-4
is the arrest notice given to the relative of the applicant No.1. It
would also show that the grounds and the quantity of the
contraband seized were communicated. Annexure-5 is the copy
of arrest notice given to the relative of the applicant No.2. It
would show that the quantity of the contraband seized were duly
communicated to them. It is true that the endorsement would
show that it was not communicated in writing but the contents
2026:KER:7290
BAIL APPL. NO. 14872 OF 2025
therein were communicated through phone. The Supreme
Court's judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) which
mandates the furnishing of written ground of arrest to an
accused before remand in all offences will operate prospectively
and cannot be applied to arrest made prior to the date of the
judgment. The arrest in this case was prior to the judgment in
Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra). Therefore, the applicants are not
entitled to be released on bail. The bail application is,
accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE
AS
2026:KER:7290
BAIL APPL. NO. 14872 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 14872 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.
20/2025 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE,
PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION TO THE
ACCUSED NO.1 WITH REGARD TO THE GROUNDS
OF ARREST U/S 47 OF BNSS
ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION TO THE
ACCUSED NO.2 WITH REGARD TO THE GROUNDS
OF ARREST U/S 47 OF BNSS
ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST NOTICE GIVEN TO
THE RELATIVE OF THE ACCUSED NO.1
ANNEXURE 5 TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST NOTICE GIVEN TO
THE RELATIVE OF THE ACCUSED NO.2
