Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 42930
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
Sadhikkali – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Bail Appl. No. 11994 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: ADV. NOUSHAD K.A.
Mandatory communication of arrest grounds is essential; non-compliance renders detention unlawful.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 22(c) and 29 - The requirement of informing a person of grounds of arrest is mandatory under Article 22(1) and must be effectively communicated. (Paras 7, 8)
(B) Bail - Application for bail in cases involving commercial quantity of narcotics - The failure to mention the quantity of contraband in the grounds of arrest rendered the arrest vitiated, allowing the petitioner’s release. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for possession of MDMA without being informed of the grounds of arrest in accordance with the law.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner’s detention was ruled unlawful due to improper communication regarding the grounds for arrest.
Issues: The core issue was whether the grounds for arrest were adequately communicated, thus affecting the bailable status of the offense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that as the grounds did not mention the quantity of contraband involved, the petitioner’s arrest was flawed under the law.
Result: The petitioner was ordered to be released from custody.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application filed under bnss. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. counsel's arguments on custody and communication of grounds. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's observations on the necessity of grounds communication. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's reasoning for invalidating the arrest. (Para 9) |
| 5. final ruling for release of the petitioner. (Para 10 , 11) |
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).
2. Petitioner is the third 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 it in a vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL-14-T-3877 and thereby committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested on 10.07.2025, and he has been in custody since then.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 10.07.2025. 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 sufÏcient 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 forthwith. Orderd accordingly.
11. Accordingly, the Superintendent of District Jail, Kozhikode, shall release the petitioner forthwith.
This bail application is disposed of as above.
