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) 5559

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
MUHAMMED FASIL C – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 14738 OF 2025|CRIME NO.1059/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.Vivek Venugopal
For the Respondents: Smt.Sreeja V.

The requirement to inform an arrested person of the grounds for arrest is mandatory; failure to comply renders the arrest illegal.

Headnote:This application is filed under Section 483 of BNSS 2023 seeking regular bail. The applicant is accused of offenses under NDPS Act. The court reviewed issues surrounding the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and concluded that proper procedures were followed during arrest. The final determination was that the bail application was dismissed.

Table of Content
1. criminal charges and arrest details. (Para 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding grounds for arrest. (Para 4 , 5)
3. ruling based on established legal principles. (Para 7 , 11 , 13)
4. mandatory nature of informing arrest grounds. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)

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.1059/2025 of Kondotty Police Station, Malappuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22 (c), 27(A) r/w Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 .

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the Inspector of Police, Kondotty raided and seized 50.61 grams of MDMA from the joint possession of accused Nos.1 to 3 on 11.09.2025 while the said three accused persons were occupying room No.203 in the Redbell Residency Lodge.

4. I have heard Sri.Vivek Venugopal, 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 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 15.09.2025 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 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’), it was held that any person arrested for an allegation of commission of offences under the provis

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