The requirement to communicate grounds for arrest, as per constitutional mandates, must be adequately fulfilled; failure to demonstrate prejudice does not justify bail.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS MONDAY, THE 29^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 7TH ASWINA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 12168 OF 2025 CRIME NO.1224/2024 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2025 IN BAIL APPL.

NO.9298 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

MIJO JOSE AGED 31 YEARS S/O. JOSE, MALIAKKAL HOUSE, CHEVOOR DESOM P.O, CHEVOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680027 BY ADV. SRI.VIVEK VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT-STATE:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI., PIN - 682031 BY ADV. SREEJA V., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

29.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

---------------------------------------

B.A. No. 12168 of 2025 ---------------------------------------

Dated this the 29^th day of September, 2025

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.1224 of 2024 of Palarivattom Police Station, Ernakulam, alleging offences punishable under Sections 8 (c), 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 .

3. According to the prosecution, the accused, on 06.12.2024, was found in possession of 52.80 grams of MDMA in his residence, and also an amount of Rs.63,520/- was seized from him, and thereby the accused committed the offences alleged.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been in custody since 27.12.2024 . 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 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. On a perusal of the case diary, it is evident that, on noticing that petitioner was in custody in connection with other crimes, a request was made by the investigating officer before the Sessions Court, Thrissur, for effecting his formal arrest. Pursuant to an application dated 22.12.2024, the Sessions Court, after being satisfied with the grounds mentioned, accorded sanction to record his form