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) 3664

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
ANVAR SHA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 12701 OF 2025|CRIME NO.104/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.DHANYA S NAIR, SRI.A.SHAMSUDEEN, SHRI.MOHAMMED RAZALI K.A, SHRI.RAHUL.S, SMT. RESHMI U.N, SHRI.GANESH CHANDRAN S., SHRI.BILAL SHAMSUDEEN, SHRI.ABY GEORGE
For the Respondents: SRI.M.C.ASHI, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Mandatory communication of grounds for arrest under Article 22(1) is imperative for the legality of the arrest.

Headnote:The applicant, the sole accused in Crime No. 104/2024, seeks bail under BNSS. The prosecution alleges possession of 160.77 grams of Methamphetamine. The court examines the legality of arrest, focusing on Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of BNSS, asserting mandatory communication of grounds for arrest. The court relies on precedents confirming that non-compliance renders arrest illegal. However, the court finds that grounds were communicated adequately in this case and dismisses the bail application.

Table of Content
1. application for bail filed under bnss. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding the legality of the arrest. (Para 4 , 5)
3. mandatory communication of arrest grounds established by court precedents. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. bail application dismissed based on findings. (Para 14)

ORDER

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 sole accused in Crime No.

104/2024 of Sulthan Bathery Police Station, Wayanad District. The offence alleged is punishable under Sections 22 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act, for short).

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant was found in possession of 160.77 grams of Methamphetamine on 20.07.2024 at 6.30 p.m. while he was travelling in KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KL-15A-2539 in contravention of the NDPS Act and thereby committed the offence.

4. I have heard Smt.Dhanya S. Nair, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.M.C.Ashi, 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 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 20.07.2024 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 inPankaj 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 and without exception. InPrabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC 254] , while dealing with the offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act,1967 (for short, ‘UAPA’), it was held that any person arrested for a

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