IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
MAJEED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 13622 OF 2025|CRIME NO.20/2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the case and applicant's background. (Para 2 , 3 , 6) |
| 2. arguments about the legality of the applicant's arrest. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's observations regarding communication of arrest grounds. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. emerging legal principles regarding arrest communication. (Para 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 applicant is the accused No.2 in Crime No. 20/2024 of Excise Range Office Manjeri, Malappuram District. The offences alleged are punishable underSections 20(b) (ii)(C) r/wSection 29of theNarcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 06.04.2024, the Excise party intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-10-AP-0695, which is owned and driven by the accused No.3, in which the applicant and the accused No.1 were sitting at the back of the car. On search of the vehicle as well as the accused, 1.058 kg. of Hashish oil in a bottle was recovered from the car and thereby committed the offences.
4. I have heard Sri.Sam Isaac Pothiyil, the learned counsel for the applicant 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 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 06.04.2024 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 ], wh
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.