Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 43328
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
SIDDIQUE A.H – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Application No. 11603 of 2025 | Crime No. 26/2024
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. NOUSHAD K. A. (PP)
Accused must be informed of grounds for arrest as a procedural safeguard, and failure to do so can impact bail applications.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 22(c), 25, 27A and 29 - Bail application filed by accused in a narcotic case contesting arrest and communication of grounds of arrest - The court reiterated that it is mandatory under Article 22(1) to communicate grounds of arrest effectively to the accused - Relevant principles from precedent cases discussed. (Paras 7, 8, 9)
(B) The requirement to inform a person of grounds for arrest was emphasized as a necessary procedural safeguard ensuring rights of the accused - The court found that the grounds were communicated adequately in the language understood by the accused. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused of possessing methamphetamine, was arrested, and the key issue centered on whether the grounds for his arrest were communicated appropriately.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the arrest memo detailed the grounds of arrest effectively communicated to the petitioner and his relative.
Issues: The primary issue was the adequacy of communication regarding the grounds for arrest of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the procedural requirement to inform an arrested person of the grounds for their arrest was upheld, and the application for bail was denied on the basis of the adequacy of this communication.
Result: Bail application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. communication of arrest grounds. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. opposition to bail based on charges. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. mandatory requirement to inform accused. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
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.26/2024 of Mananthavady Excise Range Office, Wayanad, registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 22 (c), 25, 27A and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (for short 'the NDPS' Act'), which is now pending as S.C. No.410 of 2024 on the files of the Additional District and Sessions Court (ADHOC-II), Kalpetta, Wayanad.
3. According to the prosecution, on 23.04.2024, at about 9.10 a.m., the accused were found in possession of 100.222 grams of methamphetamine, concealed in the dashboard of a car bearing registration No. KL 10-AQ-110, owned by the 3rd accused and thereby committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested on 23.04.2025 and he has been in custody since then.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been in custody since 23.04.2025. 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 and Another [2025 SCC Online SC 269] , 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 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 vs. 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 case diary, it is noticed that the arrest memo specifically refers to the grounds for arrest of the petitioner. The said arrest memo has been served on the petitioner and it contains his signature as well as his fingerprint. Further, the arrest intimation also specifically refers to the grounds for arrest and has been communicated to the petitioner's brother.
10. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the arrest intimation was given in Malayalam, there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner is not familiar with the said language. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that Malayalam is a language commonly known to people residing in the border areas of Kerala and Karnataka, and that petitioner's brother, who resides in Sullia—a bordering district of Kerala—is likely to understand it. In the absence of any specific pleading that petitioner or his brother did not understand the language in the written intimation, I am of the view that the grounds for arrest were communicated, as contemplated by law, to the arrestee as well as to his near relative.
Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed.
