A failure to supply grounds for arrest constitutes an infringement of constitutional rights, impacting subsequent legal proceedings.

ORDER

The petitioners are accused 2 and 4 in Crime No.

709/2025 registered by the Pudukkadu Police Station, Thrissur, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 (b) (ii) (C), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985.

2. The crux of the prosecution case is that on

23.05.2025, at 05:15 am, the Detecting Officer found the accused 1 to 4 in conscious possession of 125 kilograms of ganja, which was being transported in a lorry bearing registration no. KL-42-X-3218 in contravention to the provisions of the Act.

3. The petitioner has contended in the Crl.M.C that they are totally innocent of the allegations levelled against them. There are no material to substantiate their culpability in the crime. The Investigating Officer had not furnished the grounds of arrest to the petitioner. Accordingly, they filed B.A. No. 10181/2025 before this Court. By Annexure A2 order, this Court found that the Investigating Officer had failed to furnish the grounds of arrest and following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana ( AIR 2025 SC 1388 ) and the law laid down by this Court in Shahina v. State of Kerala (2025 KHC Online 706), this Court directed the Superintendent of District Jail, Viyyur, to release the petitioners immediately. As soon as the petitioners were released from jail, the Investigating Officer took the petitioners to the Pudukkad Police Station and arrested them. Although the petitioners filed an application for bail before the Court of Session, Thrissur, by Annexure A3 order, their application was dismissed. The arrest of petitioners is an infringement of their constitutional right guaranteed by Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India . Therefore, Annexure A3 order may be granted and the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions in the Crl.M.C and relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. The State Of Maharashtra , [2025 INSC 1288] , to canvas the position that once the an accused is released and, thereafter, when the grounds of arrest are supplied to him, he can be rearrested only after setting forth the explanation for the non-supply thereof, and the magistrate has to decide the application after adhering to principles of natural justice. The learned counsel contends that none of the above principles were adhered to by the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the Crl.M.C. She submitted that, subsequent to the release of the petitioner as per Annexure A2 order, they were produced before the Jurisdictional Court, who in turn remanded the petitioners to the judicial custody. After that, the petitioners filed the bail application before the Court of Session. By Annexure A3 order, the learned Sessions Judge categorically found that there was no violation of the legal mandate under Section 47 of the BNSS or Article 22 of the Constitution of India . Accordingly the bail application was dismissed. The petitioners cannot challenge the said order through this Crl.M.C. The petitioners’ remedy is to either file a fresh application for bail in case there is any change of circumstances or file a fresh application for bail before this Court. There is no error in Annexure A3 order.

Hence, the Crl.M.C may be dismissed.

7. By Annexure A2 order, this Court, on finding that the petitioners were not furnished with grounds of arrest, which is in violation of the law laid down in the Vihaan Kumar’s and Shahina’s cases (supra), directed the Superintendent of