Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 40185
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
MOMIN SEKH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Application No. 8590 of 2025 | Crime No. 70/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH, SRI.LIBIN STANLEY, SMT.SAIPOOJA, SRI.SADIK ISMAYIL, SMT.R.GAYATHRI, SRI.M.MAHIN HAMZA, SHRI.ALWIN JOSEPH, SHRI.BENSON AMBROSE
For the Respondents: SMT. SREEJA V., PP
Failure to communicate grounds for arrest violates Article 22(1), entitling the accused to bail.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 20(b)(ii)
(C) - Bail application filed by the accused for release from custody - Grounds for arrest not communicated to the petitioner, violating Article 22(1) - Court emphasizes the necessity of informing arrested individuals of their grounds for arrest in a comprehensible manner. (Paras 8, 10, 11)
(B) Rights of Arrested Persons - The court reiterates the mandatory requirement of informing the grounds for arrest as a fundamental right, ensuring that the arrested person is aware of the charges against them. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested on 07.02.2025 for possession of ganja, with the prosecution claiming it was for sale. The petitioner argued that the grounds for his arrest were not communicated to him.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the grounds for arrest were inadequately communicated, thus entitling the petitioner to bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the grounds for arrest were properly communicated to the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the failure to communicate the grounds of arrest violated the accused's rights under Article 22(1) and warranted bail.
Result: This application is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner arrested for possession of ganja. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding communication of arrest grounds. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's observations on communication requirements. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. court's ruling on bail due to communication failure. (Para 11) |
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.70 of 2025 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 [for brevity, ‘NDPS Act’]. 3. According to the prosecution, on 07.02.2025 at about
7.10 a.m., the accused was found in possession of 23.008 Kg. of ganja meant for sale and thereby committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested on 07.02.2025 and he has been in custody since then.
4. Heard Adv.P.Mohamed Sabah, the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 07.02.2025. It was submitted that the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the petitioner or his relatives at the time of his arrest.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that the grounds for arrest were communicated to the petitioner at the time of his arrest. It was also submitted that since the contraband seized from the petitioner was a commercial quantity, the rigour under Section 37 of NDPS Act will apply and hence petitioner ought not to be released on bail. 7. Though prima facie there are materials on record to connect the petitioner with the crime, since petitioner has raised the question of absence of communication of the grounds for his arrest, this Court is obliged to consider the said issue.
8. In the decisions inPankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others , [(2024) 7 SCC 576],Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC 254] andVihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana [AIR 2025 SC 1388] , it has been held that the requirement of informing a person of grounds for arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) and also that the information of the grounds for arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufÏcient knowledge of the basic facts confuting the grounds imparted and communicate to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands.
9. In a recent decision in Shahina v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC Online 706] , this Court has also considered the impact of the aforesaid principles in relation to offences alleged under the NDPS Act and held that the grounds for arrest must be communicated.
10. In the instant case, on a perusal of the case diary, which was made available by the learned Public Prosecutor, it is seen that the grounds for arrest, given in Hindi, do not refer to any specific ground other than a mere mention that the petitioner has been arrested for violating the provisions of the NDPS Act. Even in the arrest intimation, there is nothing to indicate that the grounds for arrest were communicated to a friend of the petitioner. In such circumstances, I am satisfied that the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the petitioner.
11. Petitioner has been in custody from 07.02.2025 onwards. Since the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the petitioner soon after the arrest, petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.
In the result, this application is allowed on the following conditions:-
(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.
(b) Petitioner shall co-operate with the trial of the case.
(c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence.
(d) Petitioner s
