[Cites 21, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sachin Edward vs State Of Kerala on 29 January, 2026
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
2026:KER:7341
1
BAIL APPL. NO. 14742 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. 14742 OF 2025
CRIME NO.564/2025 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.12.2025 IN BAIL APPL.
NO.13110 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:
SACHIN EDWARD
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O.EDWARD P.S., PAPPALY PARAMBIL HOUSE,
ELAMAKKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682026
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.R.VINOD
SMT.M.S.LETHA
SMT.ATHIRA K.S.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
SESSIONS COURT AT ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
2026:KER:7341
2
BAIL APPL. NO. 14742 OF 2025
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:7341
3
BAIL APPL. NO. 14742 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 accused No.3 in Crime No.
564/2025 of Palarivattom Police Station, Ernakulam District. The
offences alleged are punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 05/08/2025 at
8.50 pm, the accused No.1 was found in possession of 277.75
grams of MDMA in contravention of the NDPS Act and Rules and
thereby committed the offences. The allegation against the
applicant is that he financed accused No.1 to procure contraband
and also assisted him to transport the same.
4. I have heard Sri.K.R.Vinod, the learned counsel for the
applicant and Sri.M.C. Ashi, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
Perused the case diary.
2026:KER:7341
BAIL APPL. NO. 14742 OF 2025
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 he is not
entitled to bail at this stage.
6. The applicant was arrested on 08.08.2025 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.
2026:KER:7341
BAIL APPL. NO. 14742 OF 2025
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.
9. The question whether failure to communicate written
grounds of arrest would render the arrest illegal, necessitating the
2026:KER:7341
BAIL APPL. NO. 14742 OF 2025
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 the grounds of arrest flows from
2026:KER:7341
BAIL APPL. NO. 14742 OF 2025
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:7341
BAIL APPL. NO. 14742 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 not ipso facto render
2026:KER:7341
BAIL APPL. NO. 14742 OF 2025
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 and in any case two hours prior to the production
2026:KER:7341
BAIL APPL. NO. 14742 OF 2025
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
grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes
including offences under IPC/BNS.
2026:KER:7341
BAIL APPL. NO. 14742 OF 2025
(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.
(vii) The filing of charge sheet and cognizance of the order
cannot validate unconstitutional arrest.
2026:KER:7341
BAIL APPL. NO. 14742 OF 2025
I went through the case diary. It shows that the grounds of
arrest were intimated to the applicant and all formalities in
accordance with Chapter V of BNSS have been complied with. The
learned counsel for the applicant, relying on the decision of this
Court in Reyees R.M. v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC online
2086], argued that Annexure A2 arrest intimation given to the
relative is not in compliance of Section 48 of BNSS inasmuch as
the quantity of the contraband seized from the possession of the
accused No.1 was not furnished therein. The contraband was
seized from the possession of the accused No.1. The main
allegation against the applicant is that, he financed to the accused
No.1 to procure contraband and also assisted him to transport the
contraband. The said fact has clearly been mentioned in Annexure
A2. It is true that, the quantity of the contraband has been
mentioned in arrest intimation given to the applicant in
compliance of Section 47 of BNSS. It was based on the confession
of the accused No.1 that, he along with the applicant, went to
Bangalore to procure the contraband. Since the prosecution case
2026:KER:7341
BAIL APPL. NO. 14742 OF 2025
set up against the applicant is that, he financed the accused No.1 to
procure the contraband and assisted him to transfer the
contraband, it is not necessary to mention the quantity of the
contraband in the intimation given to the relative. Therefore, I am
of the view that there is compliance of Sections 47 and 48 of BNSS.
Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. The
bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE
AS
2026:KER:7341
BAIL APPL. NO. 14742 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 14742 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN B.A. 13110 OF
2025 DATED 03.12.2025
ANNEXURE A2 THE COPY OF THE ARREST INTIMATION HANDED
OVER TO THE MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER
ANNEXURE A3 THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN RAYEES R.M.
VS STATE OF KERALA (2025 KHC 2086)
ANNEXURE A4 THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN ANTO PAUL
PRAKASH VS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
(2025 KHC 2054)
ANNEXURE A5 THE COPY OF THE ORDER IN
CRL.M.C.NO.2810/2025 DATED 09.10.2025
