Kamal Kumar Mandal vs State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 846 Ker

Kerala High Court

Kamal Kumar Mandal vs State Of Kerala on 29 January, 2026

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: Kauser Edappagath

                                                             2026:KER:7240

             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. 14491 OF 2025

 CRIME NO.8/2025 OF THRISSUR EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, THRISSUR

        AGAINST    THE     ORDER    DATED     15.09.2025    IN   Bail   Appl.

NO.10762 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

            KAMAL KUMAR MANDAL
            AGED 25 YEARS
            S/O. SUNIL MANDAL, KHAYARTHALA, JLANKI, SIB NAGAR,
            MURSHIDABAD, WEST BENGAL, PIN - 742149

           SRI.SAM ISAAC POTHIYIL
           SMT.S.SURAJA
           SRI.MUHAMMED SUHAIR C.A
           SMT.AKSHAYA N.K.

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

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

    2       EXCISE RANGE OFFICE THRISSUR
            THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680001

            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:7240
BAIL APPL. NO. 14491 OF 2025

                                   2



                                                             "C.R."
                               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.8/2025 of

Thrissur Excise Range Office, Thrissur District. The offences

alleged are punishable under Sections 22(b)(ii)(C) and 8(c) of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short

'the NDPS Act').

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 28.01.2025,

the applicant was found in possession of 23.400 kilograms of

Ganja in violation of the NDPS Act and thereby committed the

above offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Sam Isaac Pothiyil, 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

submitted that the requirement of informing the arrested person

of the grounds of arrest is mandatory under Article 22(1) of the 2026:KER:7240 BAIL APPL. NO. 14491 OF 2025

Constitution of India and Section 47 of the BNSS, and inasmuch as

the applicant was not furnished with the grounds of arrest in the

language known to him, 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 28.01.2025, and since

then, he has been 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

full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other 2026:KER:7240 BAIL APPL. NO. 14491 OF 2025

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 the 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 2026:KER:7240 BAIL APPL. NO. 14491 OF 2025

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

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 2026:KER:7240 BAIL APPL. NO. 14491 OF 2025

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 accused person is arrested on a

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. It was

further observed that the grounds of arrest must be

communicated not only to the arrestee but also to the family

members. 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 2026:KER:7240 BAIL APPL. NO. 14491 OF 2025

written communication in every case. Substantial compliance with

the same is sufficient unless demonstrable prejudice is shown. It

was further held that individualised grounds are not an inflexible

requirement post Bansal (supra), 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 of

grounds of arrest in writing to the arrestee prior to or immediately

after arrest would not vitiate such arrest, provided said grounds 2026:KER:7240 BAIL APPL. NO. 14491 OF 2025

are supplied in writing within a reasonable time and in any case,

two hours prior to the production of the arrestee before the

Magistrate. However, it was clarified that the requirement to

communicate the written grounds of arrest to the arrestee would

only operate prospectively.

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 the 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 requirement of informing the arrestee

of the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all 2026:KER:7240 BAIL APPL. NO. 14491 OF 2025

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

shall be so done orally. The said grounds shall be communicated in

writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two

hours before the production of the arrestee for the remand

proceedings before the Magistrate.

(iv) In NDPS cases, specification of the quantity of the

contraband seized is mandatory for effective communication of

the 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 grounds of arrest in respect of a person arrested on

a warrant are not required to be furnished to him separately.

(vi) The burden is on the police to establish the proper

communication of the grounds of arrest.

(vii) The filing of a charge sheet and cognizance of the order

cannot validate an unconstitutional arrest.

2026:KER:7240 BAIL APPL. NO. 14491 OF 2025

14. The applicant sought bail before this Court on the

ground of non-communication of the grounds of arrest to him and

his relative in B.A. No.10762/2025. As per Annexure A1 order, this

Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the grounds of

arrest have been specifically intimated to the applicant as well as

to his relative. The learned counsel for the applicant, relying on

the decision of this Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), which

was pronounced after the Annexure A1 order, submitted that since

the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the applicant in

writing in the language he understands, the arrest is vitiated. The

applicant is a native of West Bengal. Annexure A2 is the arrest

memo given to the applicant, and Annexure A3 is the arrest

intimation given to the relative. Annexure A2 is in English and

Malayalam, and Annexure A3 is in Malayalam. There is nothing in

Annexures A2 and A3 to show that the grounds of arrest were

communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he

knows.

15. It is true that in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), it was

specifically held by the Supreme Court that the grounds of arrest

must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language

he or she understands. However, the dictum laid down in Mihir 2026:KER:7240 BAIL APPL. NO. 14491 OF 2025

Rajesh Shah (supra), that the grounds of arrest must be

communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he or she

understands, could operate only prospectively and cannot be

applied to an arrest made prior to the date of judgment. The

arrest in this case was prior to the decision rendered in Mihir

Rajesh Shah (supra). A perusal of the seizure mahazar shows a

clear statement that the grounds of arrest were communicated to

the arrestee at the time of arrest, and accordingly, an arrest

memo was prepared. It is also stated in the seizure mahazar that

there was telephonic communication regarding the arrest to the

applicant's father. Therefore, I am of the view that there is

compliance with Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS and Article 22(1)

of the Constitution of India.

The bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

NP 2026:KER:7240 BAIL APPL. NO. 14491 OF 2025

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 14491 OF 2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 15.09.2025 IN BA NO.

Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST MEMO OF THE PETITIONER IN CRIME NO. 08/2025 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST INTIMATION OF THE PETITIONER IN CRIME NO. 08/2025 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT