Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 42924
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
MUHAMMED AJMAL. K.P. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA. – Respondent
Bail Appl. No. 11782 of 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: SRI.PRASANTH M P (PP)
Communication of arrest grounds is mandatory; failure to comply warrants release from custody.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 22(c) and 29 - Bail application in relation to possession of narcotics - Requirement to communicate grounds of arrest as per Article 22(1) emphasized. The absence of proper grounds for arrest has implications on the bail consideration. (Paras 5, 7, 9, and 10)
(B) Rights of the arrested person - Legal principles on communicating grounds of arrest reiterated, including relevant case laws confirming the mandatory nature of such communication. Findings indicate that the petitioner was not adequately informed of the grounds of arrest. Resulted in release from custody. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested while in possession of MDMA and sought bail, contesting the communication of arrest grounds.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the necessary communication regarding the quantity of contraband was fundamental and absent, leading to the arrest being vitiated.
Issues: The key issue at hand was the adequacy of communication of the grounds for the petitioner’s arrest under the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the lack of proper grounds for arrest necessitated the release of the petitioner, emphasizing the need for thorough communication to the arrested individual.
Result: Bail granted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. possession of mdma and details regarding the arrest. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding communication of arrest grounds and legal implications. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. legal requirements for communicating arrest grounds emphasized. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's ruling on the impact of communication failure leading to bail. (Para 10) |
| 5. final decision to grant bail based on procedural shortcomings. (Para 11) |
O R D E R
This bail application is filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’). 2. Petitioner is the fourth accused in Crime No.808 of 2025 of Bakel Police Station, Kasargod, registered for the offences punishable under sections 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).
3. According to the prosecution on 08.07.2025, the accused were found in possession of 256.02 grams of MDMA while transporting them in a vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL-14-T-3877 and thereby committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested on
11.07.2025, and he has been in custody since then.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 11.07.2025. It was submitted that the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the petitioner or his relatives 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. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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 [2025 SCC Online SC 269] , it has been held that the requirement of informing a person of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) and also that the said information must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds must be communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands.
8. 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.
9. On a perusal of the records of investigation, it is noticed that though the grounds for arrest have been communicated, there is no reference to the quantity of contraband. No separate intimation has also been given. The mention of the quantity and the nature of contraband is essential to identify whether the offences committed by the petitioner falls in the category of small quantity, commercial quantity or less than commercial quantity, as that distinguishes the offence into bailable or non bailable. In the instant case, since the quantity has not been mentioned in the grounds for arrest, it cannot be said that the petitioner was served with the grounds for arrest as contemplated by law.
10. Though the investigation is still continuing, since the arrest is vitiated, I am of the view that petitioner ought to be released from custody.
11. Accordingly, the Superintendent of District Jail, Kannur, shall release the petitioner forthwith.
This bail application is disposed of as above.
