Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
AYESHA GAFFAR SAYED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The arrest of the applicant was deemed illegal because the grounds of arrest were not communicated to her at the time of arrest, which is a mandatory constitutional and statutory requirement (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The failure to communicate the grounds of arrest violates the rights guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the relevant law, rendering the arrest and subsequent remand invalid (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that the requirement of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest is not a mere formality but a fundamental right, and non-compliance results in the arrest being unlawful unless there is substantial compliance or demonstrable prejudice (!) (!) (!) .
In cases where immediate written communication of grounds is not possible, oral communication followed by written confirmation within a reasonable time (preferably at least two hours prior to remand proceedings) is sufficient (!) (!) .
For NDPS cases, specifically, the quantity of contraband must be explicitly mentioned to ensure proper communication of grounds of arrest (!) .
Since the arrest memo only contained the provisions of law without the specific grounds of arrest, the court found that the constitutional and statutory requirements were not satisfied, making the arrest and subsequent remand illegal (!) (!) .
As a result, the court ordered the release of the applicant on bail, subject to conditions including executing a bond, cooperating with investigation, appearing for inquiries, not tampering with evidence or witnesses, and not leaving Kerala without permission (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court clarified that any application for modification or cancellation of bail conditions should be filed before the appropriate court (!) .
Please let me know if you require further analysis or assistance.
O R D E R
This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short, BNSS ), seeking regular bail.
2. The applicant is the accused No.2 in Crime No.33/2025 of Mattancherry Police Station, Ernakulam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 8 (c), 22(c), 20(b)(ii)(A), 23(c), 27A & 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act') and Section 111 (1) of the Indian Penal Code , 1860.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that accused were found in possession of 298.06 grams of MDMA apart from 6.800 grams of dried ganja on 31.01.2025 and thereby committed the offences.
4. I have heard Sri.B.S.Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.U.Jayakrishnan, the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the requirement of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest is mandatory under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the BNSS and inasmuch as the applicant was not furnished with the grounds of arrest, his arrest was illegal and is liable to be released on ba
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
