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) 764

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.
Sarafudheen – Petitioner 
Versus 
State Of Kerala Represented By Public Prosecutor – Respondent 
BAIL APPL. NO. 1772 OF 2026
Decided On : 01-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shri.Aneesh K.R
For the Respondent: Sri.M.C. Ashi, Sr. Pp

The court reaffirmed the constitutional and statutory requirement to inform the arrestee of the grounds of arrest, and non-compliance renders the arrest illegal.

Headnote:This judgment discusses the mandatory requirement of informing an arrested person of the grounds for their arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the BNSS, along with the implications of non-compliance. When grounds of arrest are not communicated, it results in the arrest being illegal, warranting bail. The court ultimately allows the bail application due to failure in communicating the grounds adequately, setting out specific conditions for the applicant's release.

Table of Content
1. details of the bail application and offense. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding communication of arrest grounds. (Para 5)
3. legal principles concerning informing arrestees of grounds. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 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.1 in Crime No.587/2025 of Chalissery Police Station, Palakkad District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22 (c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act’).

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 16.08.2025 at about 12.20 p.m., accused Nos.1 to 3 were found in possession of 69.90 grams of MDMA in a house at Narimada under the ownership of Seenath, Thalakkassery House, in contravention of the NDPS Act and Rules and thereby committed the aforementioned offences.

4. I have heard Sri. Aneesh K.R., 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 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 16.08.2025 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 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 o

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