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) 5099

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
LABEEB – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 14872 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH, SRI.LIBIN STANLEY, SMT.SAIPOOJA, SRI.SADIK ISMAYIL, SMT.R.GAYATHRI, SRI.M.MAHIN HAMZA, SHRI.ALWIN JOSEPH, SHRI.BENSON AMBROSE
For the Respondents: SRI.M.C. ASHI

The requirement to inform an arrestee of the grounds for arrest is a mandatory constitutional and statutory obligation, and failure to do so can render the arrest illegal.

Headnote:This case involves a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The applicants, accused of drug possession under the NDPS Act, contended that they were not informed of the grounds for their arrest as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The Court reaffirmed the necessity of communicating arrest grounds to uphold fundamental rights and cited various Supreme Court rulings underscoring that non-compliance renders an arrest illegal. The application for bail was dismissed, with emphasis on the statutory requirements regarding arrest procedures.

Table of Content
1. this case pertains to a bail application regarding drug charges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments about the refusal to communicate grounds of arrest. (Para 5)
3. court's emphasis on mandatory communication of arrest grounds. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)

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 applicants are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.20/2025 of Excise Range Office, Parappanangadi, Malappuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22 (c), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 29.03.2025 at about 08:15 a.m., the applicants were found in possession of 330 grams of methamphetamine in a car bearing registration No. KL-58Y-4952, which was parked under the bridge at Kadalundy kadavu in contravention of the NDPS Act and Rules and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri.P.Mohamed Sabah, the learned counsel for the applicants 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 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 they are not entitled to bail at this stage.

6. The applicants were arrested on 29.03.2025 and since then they are in judicial custody.

7. Though prima facie there are materials on record to connect the applicants with the crime, since the applicants have 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 and without exception. In Prabir 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’),

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