Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
ABDUL KHADER – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arrest involved contraband possession. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. counsel submissions on arrest procedure. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. violation of communication invalidates arrest. (Para 6 , 7) |
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 accused No.2 in Crime No.808/2025 of Bakel Police Station, Kasargod District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22 (c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act, for short).
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 08.07.2025, at 10:40 p.m., the accused no. 1 and the applicant were found in possession of 256.02 grams of MDMA in a vehicle bearing registration no. KL-14T-3877 at Pulickal in Periya Village in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act and thereby committed the aforementioned offences.
4. I have heard Sri.P.Mohamed Sabah, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.M.C.Ashi, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 08.07.2025 and the grounds of a
None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. The descriptions provided focus on the legal principles established or clarified in each case but do not mention subsequent judicial treatment that would suggest they have been invalidated or discredited. Therefore, based solely on the information given, there are no cases identified as bad law.
Followed / Affirmed:
None explicitly mentioned. The descriptions do not specify subsequent treatment or judicial affirmations.
Distinguished / Clarified:
ALVIN RIBY vs STATE OF KERALA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 48518: This case emphasizes the importance of mandatory communication of arrest grounds to near relatives under Article 22(1). Since no subsequent treatment is mentioned, it appears to stand as a principle without indication of being overruled or criticized.
Prabir Purkayastha VS State (NCT of Delhi) - 2024 4 Supreme 708: This case clarifies the rights of arrested persons regarding the communication of grounds of arrest and distinguishes between ‘reasons for arrest’ and ‘grounds of arrest’. Again, no subsequent treatment is indicated, so it likely remains a relevant authority on this point.
Pankaj Bansal VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 1000: This case discusses the arrest of a suspect by ED and the requirements under Section 19 of the PML Act, 2002, and Section 167 of Cr.P.C. No subsequent treatment is mentioned, so it appears to continue as a valid interpretation.
Unrevised / Unquestioned:
All three cases seem to establish specific legal principles without indication that they have been subsequently overruled or criticized.
None of the cases contain explicit language or indications suggesting their treatment has been questioned, criticized, overruled, or reversed. The lack of such information means their current legal standing cannot be definitively assessed as problematic based on the provided data. If further case law or judicial commentary were available, this assessment might be refined.
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
