SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 3424

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
SHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 13809 OF 2025|CRIME NO.973/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR, SMT.RADHIKA S.ANIL, SHRI.NIJAZ JALEEL, SHRI.NEERAJ S.
For the Respondents: SMT.SREEJA V., SR. PP.

The arrest without communicating grounds violates fundamental rights under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, rendering it illegal.

Headnote:This judgment analyzes the mandatory requirement of informing an arrested individual of the grounds for their arrest as stipulated under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The applicant, an accused in a NDPS case, contended that he was not informed of the grounds for his arrest, making it illegal. The court found non-compliance with the requirement, thus rendering the arrest nonest, and held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail with specified conditions. The final ruling allows bail on several conditions, including cooperation with the investigation and restrictions regarding communication with witnesses.

Table of Content
1. request for bail submission and the legal framework. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments presented by counsel and the prosecutor regarding the legality of the arrest. (Para 4 , 5)
3. explanation of the binding legal principles regarding arrest notifications. (Para 6 , 8 , 12 , 13)
4. discussion on relevant supreme court precedents concerning the grounds of arrest. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. conditions and approval for the bail application. (Para 14)

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.7 in Crime No. 973 /

2024 of Punalur Police Station, Kollam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 8A(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 r/w Section 29 of NDPS Act and Sections 111(2)(b), 114(4) and

238(b) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 11.07.2024 at 2 pm, the detecting officer seized 30.37 kgs of ganja from the possession of accused Nos. 1 and 2. It is also alleged that the other accused hatched a criminal conspiracy to secure ganja in contravention of the NDPS Act and Rules and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri.K.V.Anil Kumar, the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Senior 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 bail. On the other hand, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that all legal formalities were complied with in accordance with Chapter V of the at the time of the arrest of the applicant. It is further submitted that the alleged incident occurred as part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant and hence he is not entitled to bail at this stage.

6. The applicant was arrested on 30.01.2025 and since then he is in judicial custody.

7. Though prima facie there are materials on record to connect the applicant with the crime, since the applicant has raised a question of absence of communication of the grounds of his arrest, let me consider the same.

8. Chapter V of BNSS , 2023 deals with the arrest of persons. Sub-section (1) of Section 35 of lists cases when police may arrest a person without a warrant. Section 47 of clearly states that every police officer or other person arresting any person without a warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India provides that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. Thus, the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory statutory and constitutional requirement. Noncompliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution will be a violation of the fundamental right of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. It will also amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article

21 of the Constitution.

9. The question whether failure to communicate written grounds of arrest would render the arrest illegal, necessitating the release of the accused, is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others [(2024) 7 SCC 576] , while dealing with Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, has held that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. It was further held that a copy of written grounds of arrest should be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top