SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Ker) 494

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.
Kamal Kumar Mandal s/o. Sunil mandal - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By The Public Prosecutor – Respondent 
BAIL APPL. NO. 14491 OF 2025
Decided on : 29-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI.SAM ISAAC POTHIYIL SMT.S.SURAJA SRI.MUHAMMED SUHAIR C.A SMT.AKSHAYA N.K.
For the Respondent: SRI.M.C.ASHI, SR.PP

The requirement to communicate grounds of arrest is mandatory and non-compliance may vitiate the legality of the arrest.

Headnote:The application for bail under Section 483 of the BNSS was determined in view of the alleged failure to communicate the grounds of the applicant's arrest, in accordance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS. The applicant was arrested for possession of contraband and argued for bail based on the alleged illegality of the arrest due to non-communication. The Court found sufficient compliance with statutory requirements regarding communication, leading to the denial of bail, as established by several precedents including Mihir Rajesh Shah and related judgements.

Table of Content
1. possession of a specified quantity of contraband leads to criminal consequences under ndps act. (Para 2 , 3)
2. legal formalities on arrest necessity for fundamental rights protection. (Para 5 , 11)
3. court emphasizes importance of communicating grounds of arrest. (Para 7 , 8 , 10)
4. the arguments presented did not satisfy legal standards; bail application dismissed. (Para 14 , 15)

ORDER :

KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.

1. 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.8/2025 of Thrissur Excise Range Office, Thrissur District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22(b)(ii)(C) and 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act’).

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 28.01.2025, the applicant was found in possession of 23.400 kilograms of Ganja in violation of the NDPS Act and thereby committed the above offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Sam Isaac Pothiyil, 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 in the language known to him, his arrest was illegal and is liable to be released on bail. On the other hand, the learned Senior 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 28.01.2025, and since then, he has been 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 the 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 Unlawf

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top