The case involved several key stages: Initial Arrest: The petitioner was arrested on 20.05.2025 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, without being informed of the grounds for arrest (!) [para 1]. Illegal Detention and Court Intervention: The petitioner was detained for 93 days, during which the court declared the arrest unlawful and ordered the petitioner’s release (!) [para 2]. Release and Re-arrest: Following the court’s order, the petitioner was released on 22.08.2025 but was subsequently re-arrested for the same crime without fresh grounds, leading to a constitutional violation claim (!) [para 2]. Court Proceedings and Hearing: The court heard arguments regarding the violation of constitutional rights and the legality of the re-arrest, considering whether the grounds for arrest were properly communicated (!) [para 3]. Court’s Findings and Decision: The court found that the initial arrest was unlawful due to non-disclosure of grounds but clarified that re-arrest in accordance with law is permissible. The court also held that the petitioner’s remedy was to seek bail, not to file a writ petition under Article 226 (!) [paras 4-7]. Final Judgment: The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that it was not maintainable given the availability of alternative remedies such as seeking bail (!) [para 10].

Muhammad Navas C.V., S/o. Majeed C.V. Punathilvayal vs State Of Kerala, Represented By The Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Ker) 3238

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH
Muhammad Navas C.V., S/o. Majeed C.V. Punathilvayal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By The Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shri. Sagith Kumar V., Sri. C.B. Sreekumar, Smt. Devapriya S.
For the Respondents: Sri. Rajeev Jyothish George, Government Pleader

Judgement Key Points

The case involved several key stages:

Initial Arrest: The petitioner was arrested on 20.05.2025 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, without being informed of the grounds for arrest (!) [para 1].
Illegal Detention and Court Intervention: The petitioner was detained for 93 days, during which the court declared the arrest unlawful and ordered the petitioner’s release (!) [para 2].
Release and Re-arrest: Following the court’s order, the petitioner was released on 22.08.2025 but was subsequently re-arrested for the same crime without fresh grounds, leading to a constitutional violation claim (!) [para 2].
Court Proceedings and Hearing: The court heard arguments regarding the violation of constitutional rights and the legality of the re-arrest, considering whether the grounds for arrest were properly communicated (!) [para 3].
Court’s Findings and Decision: The court found that the initial arrest was unlawful due to non-disclosure of grounds but clarified that re-arrest in accordance with law is permissible. The court also held that the petitioner’s remedy was to seek bail, not to file a writ petition under Article 226 (!) [paras 4-7].
Final Judgment: The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that it was not maintainable given the availability of alternative remedies such as seeking bail (!) [para 10].

Table of Content
1. violation of article 22(1) due to non-communication. (Para 1 , 2 , 5)
2. writ petitions are not maintainable if alternatives exist. (Para 3 , 7)
3. grounds for arrest must be communicated. (Para 4 , 6)

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner states that he was originally arrested on 20.05.2025 in Crime No.500/2025 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 . According to the petitioner, the arrest was vitiated due to non-compliance of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India . Grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner personally.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

5. While arresting the petitioner on 20.05.2025, the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court as per Ext.P2 order directed the Superintendent of District Jail, Kozhikode to release the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner was again re-arrested. The present grievance of the petitioner is on the re-arrest. According to the petitioner, the re-arrest perpetuates the same constitutional violation that has vitiated the original arrest. The petitioner has not been comm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document