Back
KERALA HIGH COURT
Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J.
Pramod – Petitioner
versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Bail Appl. No. 2004 of 2026
Decided on 10.4.2026
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Sri. Jithin Babu A, Shri. Arun Samuel, Shri. Anood Jalal K.J., Smt. Dona Mathew
For the Respondent: Sri. C.K. Suresh, Spl. PP
IMPORTANT POINT
Arrest – Requirement of informing person arrested of grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory statutory and constitutional requirement.
Headnote:
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 35, 47 and 483 – Constitution of India – Articles 21 and 22(1) – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 329(3) and 103(1) – Bail application – Legality of arrest – Requirement of informing person arrested of grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory statutory and constitutional requirement – Non-compliance with Article 22(1) of Constitution will be a violation of fundamental right of accused guaranteed by said Article – It will also amount to a violation of right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of Constitution – Grounds for arrest were not communicated to applicant or to his relatives in terms of Sections 47 and 48 of BNSS – Applicant’s arrest and his subsequent remand are non est and he is entitled to be released on bail – Bail granted. (Paras 8 and 14)
Result: Petition allowed.
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. 66/2025 of Mala Police Station, Thrissur District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 329(3) and 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 13.01.2025 at 4:20 p.m., the applicant due to previous enmity and with an intention to commit murder, hacked on the forehead and head of Thomas with a sword and when the deceased fell on the ground, the applicant again hacked the deceased with sword and also hit on the hands, legs and other parts of the body of the deceased with wooden pieces and concrete pieces which were lying at the place of incident and committed murder.
4. I have heard Sri.A.Jithin Babu, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.C.K.Suresh, the learned Special 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 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 16.01.2025 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 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 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 rig
