IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Kauser Edappagath, J.
Manikandan – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Bail Appl. No. 1476 of 2026
Decided On : 22-05-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature and procedural background of the bail application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. submission of parties regarding the legality of arrest for bail purposes. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. legal requirements and precedents regarding the communication of grounds of arrest. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. application of legal principles to the case and final bail order. (Para 14) |
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.1 in Crime No.479/2024 of Cherpu Police Station, Thrissur District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 302 and 120B r/w Section 34 of the IPC.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that due to previous enmity, accused Nos. 1 to 3 committed murder of deceased Manu on 05.05.2024 by hitting with a hockey stick and the deceased succumbed to injuries on 06.05.2024 at about 00.45 hours and thereby committed the offences.
4. I have heard Sri.Kiran Murali, 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 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 06.05.2024 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 Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC 254], while dealing with the offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act,1967 (for short, ‘UAPA’), it was held tha
The failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing to the arrestee, in accordance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS, renders the arrest and subsequent remand ....
Failure to communicate grounds of arrest violates constitutional rights, rendering the arrest illegal and warranting bail.
The applicant's illegal arrest without proper communication of grounds warranted bail as per constitutional mandates.
The failure to communicate grounds of arrest renders the arrest illegal, violating constitutional rights under Article 22(1).
Mandatory communication of written grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) and BNSS; non-compliance renders arrest illegal, entitling bail.
The requirement to inform an arrestee of grounds for arrest is mandatory, and noncompliance renders the arrest illegal.
Mandatory written communication of arrest grounds under Article 22(1) and BNSS Section 47; non-compliance renders arrest illegal, entitling bail.
An arrest is rendered illegal and the arrestee is entitled to bail if the grounds of arrest are not communicated in writing in a language the arrestee understands, per Article 22(1) of the Constituti....
Non-communication of contraband quantity in arrest grounds violates Article 22(1), rendering NDPS arrest illegal, entitling bail.
The requirement to communicate grounds of arrest is mandatory and failure to do so renders the arrest illegal.
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.