Libnu Sanas vs State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 988 Ker

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 988 Ker
Judgement Date : 30 January, 2026

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Libnu Sanas vs State Of Kerala on 30 January, 2026

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: Kauser Edappagath

                                                              2026:KER:7838


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

       FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026/10TH MAGHA, 1947

                      BAIL APPL. NO. 14713 OF 2025

  CRIME NO.32/2025 OF KOZHIKODE EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE, KOZHIKODE

 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.11.2025 IN BAIL APPL. NO.12902 OF

                      2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

            LIBNU SANAS,
            AGED 29 YEARS, S/O ALAVI,
            KALLARMANGALAM, MUZHUVANGADI, IDAVAKATH HOUSE,
            MARAKKARA, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 676553

            BY ADV SMT.K.REEHA KHADER


RESPONDENT/STATE:

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

            BY ADV.
            SRI.M.C. ASHI, SR. PP


     THIS   BAIL    APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
30.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 14713 OF 2025
                                      2
                                                                2026:KER:7838


                               ORDER

Dated this the 30th day of January, 2026

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.1 in

Crime No.32/2024 of the Excise Enforcement and Anti

Narcotic Special Squad, Kozhikode. The offences alleged

are punishable under Sections 22(c) read with Section 29 of

the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

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

31.10.2024, the accused were found in conscious

possession of 220 grams of Methamphetamine near the

institution named City Optic, Indira Gandhi Road, Kasaba

Amsom Desom, Kozhikode Corporation in violation of

Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act and thus committed the

above-mentioned offences.

4. I have heard Smt. Reeha Khader.K, the

learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. M.C.Ashi, the

learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant BAIL APPL. NO. 14713 OF 2025

2026:KER:7838

submitted that the applicant has been in custody since

31.10.2024 and the grounds of arrest were not

communicated in accordance with law at the time of his

arrest. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor on the other

hand opposed the bail application and submitted that the

grounds of arrest were duly communicated.

6. 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.

7. It is now well settled that the requirement

of informing a person of the grounds for arrest is a

mandatory requirement of Art.22(1) of the Constitution and

Section 47 of BNSS and absence of the same would render

the arrest illegal (See. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India

and Others [(2024) 7 SCC 576], Prabir Purkayastha v.

State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC 254], Vihaan Kumar

v. State of Haryana and Others (2025 SCC OnLine SC

269] and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra

and Another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356). BAIL APPL. NO. 14713 OF 2025

2026:KER:7838

8. In this case, a perusal of the records show

that the grounds of arrest have been properly

communicated to the arrestee, but in the arrest intimation

given to the near relatives, there is no reference to the

quantity of the contraband seized from the applicant. The

Supreme Court in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of

Andhra Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228) has held

that the grounds of arrest should not only be provided to

the arrestee but also to his family members and relatives

so that necessary arrangements are made to secure the

release of the person arrested at the earliest possible

opportunity so as to make the mandate of Art.22(1)

meaningful and effective, failing which, such arrest would

be rendered illegal. A learned Single Judge of this Court in

Alvin Riby v. State of Kerala (2025 KER 67079)

following Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra) held that

failure to comunicate the grounds of arrest to the near

relatives renders the arrest illegal. Inasmuch as the

grounds of arrest were not properly communicated to the

relatives of the applicant, the arrest stands vitiated and he

is entitled to be released on bail.

BAIL APPL. NO. 14713 OF 2025

2026:KER:7838

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 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.