IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Kauser Edappagath, J.
Muhammed Bilal – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By The Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Bail Appl. No. 792 Of 2026
Decided On : 18-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. requirements for filing bail applications. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. judicial custody and legal formalities. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. legal arguments regarding arrest procedures. (Para 5) |
| 4. court's observations on legal requirements regarding grounds for arrest. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
ORDER :
Kauser Edappagath, J.
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.5 in Crime No.1059/2025 of Kondotty Police Station, Malappuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22 (c) and 27(A) r/w Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 .
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the excise officials seized 50.61 grams of MDMA from the joint possession of accused Nos.1 to 3 on 11.09.2025 from Room No.203 of Red Bell Residency, Kizhisseri. The further allegation against the accused Nos.5 and 7 is that the said offence was committed in furtherance of conspiracy between the said accused and the applicant herein along with other co-accused and thereby committed the offences.
4. I have heard Sri.Abdul Hadi M.P., the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. M.C.Ashi, 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 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 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 15.09.2025 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 lists cases when police may arrest a person without a warrant. Section 47 of 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
Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others
Non-compliance with the mandatory requirement to inform arrested individuals of grounds for arrest can render the arrest illegal; however, if procedures are followed, the application for bail may be ....
Notification of arrest grounds is constitutionally mandated and noncompliance renders arrest illegal, barring compelling reasons.
Non-communication of arrest grounds violates constitutional rights, necessitating procedural compliance.
Noncompliance with arrest grounds notification violates fundamental rights, but if proper procedures are followed, the arrest remains valid.
Compliance with statutory obligations in arrest procedures is essential, particularly communicating grounds of arrest to uphold constitutional rights.
Failure to inform arrestee of grounds of arrest violates constitutional rights, rendering the arrest illegal.
The non-compliance with the requirement to inform arrested individuals of the grounds for their arrest renders such arrests illegal, thus entitling the accused to bail.
Failure to communicate grounds of arrest constitutes an illegal arrest, violating constitutional and statutory mandates.
Failure to communicate grounds of arrest renders it illegal and violative of constitutional rights.
Illegal arrest due to non-communication of grounds violates fundamental rights under Article 22(1).
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.