Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 44801
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
AHAMMED ALI P.P – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Application | 12019 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.
Non-communication of arrest grounds to near relatives is a breach of rights under Article 22(1), mandating bail grant despite being in custody.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 22(c) and 29 - Bail application filed by the petitioner in custody since 08.07.2024 alleged offences related to commercial quantity of contraband - Requirement of informing arrestee and near relatives of grounds for arrest as per Article 22(1) emphasized; failure to communicate to relatives mandates bail grant. (Paras 7, 12, 13)
(B) Bail - Law relating to bail recognized principles regarding communication of grounds of arrest - Court ruled on mandatory communication requirements of arrest grounds for both arrestee and relatives, irrespective of the mode of arrest. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner, a third accused arrested for drug-related offences, contends non-communication of arrest grounds to relatives. Prosecutor argues contraband’s commercial quantity necessitates bail denial. Court examines legal precedents on arrest communication and finds procedural lapses. (Paras 3-6)
Findings of Court:
court recognized lapse in notifying the near relatives of the arrest grounds, qualifying petitioner for bail due to violation of legal requirements. (Paras 7, 13)
Issues: The main issues were the procedural communication of grounds for arrest and impact on bail eligibility. (Paras 12)
Ratio Decidendi: Non-communication to the petitioner’s relatives is a fundamental breach of rights under Article 22(1), and the petitioner is entitled to bail based on said failure. (Paras 12, 13)
Result: This application is allowed on specified bail conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail application process and the context of arrest. (Para 1) |
| 2. details of accused's arrest in relation to possession of drugs. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. arguments regarding grounds for arrest and custody duration. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. legal obligations for informing arrested parties of their charges. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. specific rulings regarding the communication of grounds for arrest. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. clarifications on requirements contrasting previous case laws. (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. 43/2024 of Mananthavady Excise Range Office, Wayanad, registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 22 (c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (for short 'the NDPS' Act'), which is now pending as S.C. No.28 of 2025 on the file of Court of the Special Judge NDPS Act Cases/ Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kalpetta, Wayanad District.
3. According to the prosecution, on 12.06.2024, at about 12:45 p.m., accused 1 and 2 were found in possession while transporting 54.39 grams of methamphetamine in a car bearing registration No. KL- 13-AN-3204, and thereby committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested on 08.07.2024, and he has been in custody since then.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been in custody since 08.07.2024. It was submitted that 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 of 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] and Vihaan 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. In the instant case, on a perusal of the case diary, it is noticed that petitioner was already in custody in connection with Crime No.40/2024 of Excise Range Office, Iritty, which is an offence registered under the NDPS Act itself, for possession of commercial quantity of contraband. As he was already in custody, a production warrant was issued pursuant to an order of formal arrest directed to be recorded as issued by the Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Vadakara. Since the petitioner was arrested pursuant to a production warrant, the requirement of communicating the grounds for arrest separately does not arise as observed in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2025) INSC 768] . The arrest memo also indicates that at the time of his arrest, he was intimated of the grounds for arrest. However, from the case diary, it has been revealed that the grounds for arrest were not intimated to a near relative o
