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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 48518

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
ALVIN RIBY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.SUNEESH KUMAR R., SRI.B.BIPIN, SMT.K.J.ANITHA
For the Respondents: SRI. PRASANTH M.P.

Judgement Key Points

Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?

Key Points: - The mandatory communication of arrest grounds to near relatives under Article 22(1) is essential, and failure to communicate to near relatives renders the arrest illegal and custody unlawful. (!) - Grounds for arrest were communicated to the arrestee but not to near relatives, invalidating the arrest and requiring release. (!) (!) - The court directs immediate release of the petitioner due to vitiated arrest and illegal custody; it also emphasizes need for training and compliance by police (DANSAF) on arrest procedures. (!) (!) (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?


ORDER

This bail application is filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).

2. Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.1053 of 2025 of Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 22 (c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the NDPS Act’).

3. According to the prosecution, on 12.08.2025, the Sub Inspector of Police, DANSAF, Ernakulam City received information regarding the contraband kept for sale and reached the rented house of the petitioner and recovered 5.550 grams of MDMA from the first accused and 4.990 grams of MDMA from the pocket of the 2nd accused and thereby the accused committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested on 12.08.2025 and he has been in custody since then.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 12.08.2025 and that the grounds for arrest were not communicated at the time of his arrest.

5. 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. I

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top