Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J.
Vishnu N.P. S/o Manoj – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
B.A. Nos. 12287, 12289, 12376, 12603 of 2025
Decided On : 25-11-2025
Based on the provided legal document, the key points regarding the issue of communication of grounds of arrest and the entitlement to bail are as follows:
The constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India emphasize that an arrestee must be informed of the grounds for arrest as soon as possible, to ensure effective defense and protect personal liberty (!) (!) .
The requirement for communication of grounds of arrest is fundamental and cannot be bypassed through mere substantial compliance; the absence of written grounds impairs the constitutional protections unless demonstrable prejudice is shown (!) (!) .
The mode of communication must be meaningful, ensuring the arrestee understands the grounds, preferably in writing and in a language they comprehend, to facilitate their right to legal counsel and to challenge the arrest if necessary (!) (!) .
Oral explanation alone does not fulfill the legal requirement; written communication is necessary, especially when the grounds are voluminous or sensitive, to provide clarity and record-keeping (!) (!) .
The failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing, or within a reasonable time (generally within two hours), can render the arrest illegal and violate the arrestee’s rights, leading to the arrest being deemed invalid (!) (!) (!) .
The burden of proof regarding compliance with the requirement of informing grounds of arrest lies with the police; if a violation is established, the arrest is considered unconstitutional, and the person must be released (!) (!) .
When an arrest is found to violate the constitutional requirement of informing grounds, it results in the arrest being invalid, and continued detention or remand based on such an arrest is also unlawful. The court is obliged to order the release of the accused in such cases (!) (!) .
The responsibilities of the magistrate include verifying that the grounds of arrest have been properly communicated before proceeding with remand, and ensuring compliance with constitutional protections (!) (!) .
The principles outlined emphasize that the communication of grounds is not just procedural but essential for safeguarding personal liberty, and non-compliance can lead to the arrest being declared illegal, warranting bail even when statutory restrictions exist (!) (!) .
In the context of bail, if the court finds that the arrest was made without proper communication of grounds, it must consider the violation of fundamental rights as a significant factor, often resulting in bail being granted (!) (!) .
In summary, proper and timely communication of the grounds of arrest is a constitutional mandate that safeguards personal liberty. Failure to do so invalidates the arrest and necessitates the release of the detainee, regardless of statutory restrictions, to uphold constitutional rights.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. identification of parties and proceedings (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding communication of grounds for arrest (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. foundational rights under article 21 and 22 (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. legal requirements for informing grounds of arrest (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. judicial precedents on communication of arrest grounds (Para 19 , 20 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. requirements and consequences of article 22 compliance (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 7. responsibilities of the magistrate in remand proceedings (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 8. conclusion of decisions on bail applications (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
ORDER :
1. All these Bail Applications are being disposed of by this common order, as the questions of law involved are similar.
2. The issue raised in these Bail Applications pertains to the alleged violation of the petitioners’ right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Sections 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'). The petitioners assert that they were not informed of the grounds of their arrest.
Submissions
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutors.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the arrest and remand of the petitioners were in gross violation of the constitutional protection contained in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576, Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2025) 5 SCC 799, Ahmed Mansoor v. State, MANU/SCOR/77602/2025, Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228, Shahina v. State of Kerala, 2025 (5) KHC 203 and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356 in support of their contentions. The learned counsel for the petitioner in B.A No.12376/2025, apart from adopting the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the other petitioners, relied on Manikandan N P v State of Kerala, 2025 (1) KHC 451 and Nijamu A. v. State of Kerala, 2023 KHC OnLine 10117, to contend that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the principle of parity as the other accused in that crime was released on bail by a learned Sessions Judge for the reason that grounds of arrest were not communicated to him. The learned counsel, relying on Anuraj v. State of Kerala, 2024 (4) KHC 68, submitted that even after specific directions issued by this Court, the Government have not taken any steps to expedite the forensic science examination. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future, which would curtail the petitioner’s liberty as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution.
5. The learned Public Prosecutors submitted that Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS do not require the communication of the grounds of arrest in writing. The learned Prosecutors vehemently contended that, insofar as the communication of the grounds of arrest is concerned, 'substantial compliance' is the law. They relied on State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702 to fortify their contentions.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners, relying on Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another, submitted that the communication of the grounds of arrest in writing is the law.
7. The learned Public Prosecutors, relying on Sri Darshan (supra), submitted that the mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or a denial of a fair opportunity to defend.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Sri Darshan turned on materially different facts, and that in Ahmed Mansoor another two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court distinguished the principles declared in Sri Darshan.
Consideration
The failure to communicate grounds of arrest constitutes a violation of constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 22(1), rendering the arrest illegal and necessitating bail even amidst statutory re....
The requirement to inform an arrested person of the grounds for their arrest, as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution, is a mandatory condition that must be adhered to, failing which the arr....
(1) Arrest – Constitutional Safeguards – A police officer cannot casually arrest a person against whom commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years is alleged – The....
The requirement to communicate grounds for arrest is a constitutional obligation; non-compliance renders the arrest illegal, providing grounds for bail even under stringent statutory provisions.
Absence of written grounds of arrest does not mandate bail absent prejudice; substantial compliance via awareness suffices in serious offences, especially pre-'henceforth' rulings.
The failure to inform an arrested person of the grounds for their arrest violates fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution, rendering the arrest illegal and justifying bail.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
