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) 6642

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
MAHESH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 178 OF 2026|CRIME NO.48/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.SREELAKSHMI SABU
For the Respondents: SRI.K.A. NOUSHAD, SR. PP

The constitutional and statutory mandate to inform arrested persons of grounds for arrest is non-negotiable, and failure to do so renders the arrest illegal.

Headnote:In analyzing the application for bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, the Court emphasized the mandatory requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS. The facts indicate the appellant was arrested for possession of contraband, without communication of arrest grounds, rendering the arrest illegal. The Court found that the non-communication of the grounds violated constitutional rights and established a precedent affirming the necessity of informing arrested persons properly.

Result: The bail application is allowed.

Table of Content
1. facts surrounding the bail application and possession of contraband. (Para 2 , 3)
2. court's observations on the requirements and implications of article 22(1) and related statutes. (Para 4 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. arguments regarding the legality of arrest and grounds communication. (Para 5)
4. conclusion on granting bail based on legal findings. (Para 14)

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 in Crime No. 48 of 2024 of Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Idukki District. The offence alleged is punishable under Section 20 (b)

(ii)C of the NDPS Act.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 31/8/2024 at about 6.10 p.m., the applicant was found in possession of 20.620 kg of dried Ganja at the house bearing No. 469 in Ward No. 7 of Vellathooval Grama Panchayath in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act and thereby committed the offence.

4. I have heard Smt.Sreelakshmi Sabu, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.K.A. Noushad, 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 he is not entitled to bail at this stage.

6. The applicant was arrested on 31.08.2024 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 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

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