The court emphasized the necessity of proper communication of arrest grounds as per constitutional and statutory mandates for bail consideration.

O R D E R

This is an application seeking regular bail, filed under Section

483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), 2023.

2. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.951 of 2024 of Alathur Police Station, Palakkad. The offences alleged against the petitioner and other accused are punishable under Sections 20 (b)(ii) (C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows :- on

29.08.2024 at 5:00 PM, the petitioner, along with the other accused, was found in possession of 23.280 kgs. of ganja for the purpose of sale.

4. The petitioner was arrested and produced before the jurisdictional court on 29.08.2024 and he has been in judicial custody since then.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks regular bail on the following grounds :-

a) The grounds of arrest were not properly communicated as required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS .

b) The presence of the petitioner is highly required in his family house as his 11 year old child is suffering from Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea of the petitioner on the ground that the prosecution could collect credible materials to prima facie establish the commission of offence by the petitioner.

8. The Case Diary is placed before me. The prosecution failed to produce any material to show that the grounds of arrest were communicated as required. The arrest memo or any other contemporaneous documents do not show that the relevant information regarding the grounds of arrest was communicated to the petitioner.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied onPankaj Bansal v. Union of India [(2024) 7 SCC 576] ,Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana [(2025) 5 SCC 799 = 2025 KHC 6116],Ahmed Mansoor v. State [2025 KHC OnLine 7583],Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228 = 2025 KHC OnLine 6542],Shahina v. State of Kerala [2025 (5) KHC 203] and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another [2025 KHC OnLine 6915].

10. For the reason that the grounds of arrest were not properly communicated to the petitioner, he is entitled to be released on bail.

11. This Court obtained a report from the Legal Services Authority regarding the health condition of the petitioner’s child. After obtaining report from the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Kandhamal, Phulbani, Odisha, the Member Secretary, Kerala State Legal Services Authority, reported thus :- “In compliance with this requisition, the report from the Odisha State Legal Services Authority has been duly received, confirming that the child is residing at the stated address in Kandhamal, Odisha, and is currently undergoing treatment for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia. The report from the Odisha State Legal Services Authority, is hereby placed before the Hon’ble High Court for kind perusal.”

12. This Court has also taken note of the health condition of the petitioner’s child and appreciates the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner’s presence is required in Odisha.

In the result, the Bail Application is allowed as follows :-

(a) The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

(b) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

(c) The petitioner shall co-operate with the trial of the case.

(d) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prose