Manu S Nair vs State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 2392 Ker

Kerala High Court

Manu S Nair vs State Of Kerala on 30 March, 2026

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: Kauser Edappagath

                                              2026:KER:28159



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

   MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1948

                BAIL APPL. NO. 1272 OF 2026

 CRIME NO.767/2025 OF KALLADICODE POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD

 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2026 IN CMP NO.1 OF 2026 OF

  DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT / RENT CONTROL APPELLATE

                    AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

         MANU S NAIR,
         AGED 35 YEARS
         S/O SANTHOSH KUMAR, PAYIKKATT VEED, KUMARAKAM,
         VAIKKOM, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686563.

         BY ADVS.
         SMT.FOUSIYA RAYINMAKI
         SRI.D.M.NOWFAL
         SMT.PARVATHY A.
RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

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

         SMT.SREEJA V., SR. PP


     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A. No.1272 OF 2026             2


                                                    2026:KER:28159




                              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.1 in Crime

No.767/2025 of Kalladikkode Police Station, Palakkad District. The

offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29 of

the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

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

19.09.2025 at 12:35 hours, on Palakkad - Kozhikkode National

Highway at Karimba Pallippadi, the applicant on the instruction of

accused No.2, was found transporting 151.700 grams of

methamphetamine in a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-55-

W-874 for the purpose of sale. Thus, the applicant has committed

the above offences.

4. I have heard Smt.Fousiya Rayinmaki, the learned

counsel for the applicant and Sri.Sreeja V., 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

2026:KER:28159

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 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 19.09.2025 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.

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

2026:KER:28159

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 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

2026:KER:28159

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 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

2026:KER:28159

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

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

2026:KER:28159

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

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:28159

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.

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:28159

(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.

14. I went through the case diary, it is seen,

separate grounds of arrest were communicated to the applicant.

However, there is no reference to the quantity of the contraband

2026:KER:28159

seized from the possession of the applicant. 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 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,

2026:KER:28159

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 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 mea

2026:KER:28159

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 1272 OF 2026

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.

767/2025 OF KALLADIKKODE POLICE STATION Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.1.2026 IN CRL M P NO. 1 OF 2026 IN CRIME NO.

767 OF 2025 OF KALLADIKKODE POLICE STATION