2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 7082
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
SHEMI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 14846 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
For the Respondents: SRI.K.A. NOUSHAD, SR. PP
Failure to inform an arrested person of the grounds for their arrest is a violation of constitutional rights and renders the arrest illegal.
Headnote:This application pertains to an appeal for regular bail filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, concerning Crime No. 1154/2025. The applicant, accused No. 1, challenges the legality of her arrest for alleged drug trafficking under the NDPS Act. The court determines that the failure to communicate grounds of arrest, as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of BNSS, renders the arrest illegal, entitling the accused to bail. The court references recent judgments emphasizing the necessity of informing arrested individuals of the reasons for their arrests clearly and adequately. The court concludes by stating that the applicant's arrest is illegal, leading to her immediate release on bail.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case highlight the circumstances of arrest and charges. (Para 2 , 6) |
| 2. court's observations on the requirements of informing grounds of arrest. (Para 4 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. arguments presented regarding the legality and rights concerning arrest. (Para 5) |
| 4. ratio decidendi emphasizing the importance of grounds communication. (Para 7 , 10 , 14) |
| 5. final ruling on the applicant's entitlement to bail due to illegal arrest. (Para 15) |
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.1 in Crime No.1154/2025 of Pozhiyoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 8 (c), 22(c) read with 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act').
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 30.09.2025 at about 3:10 a.m., the applicant along with accused Nos.2 to 4 was found in possession and transporting 305.16 gms of MDMA in an Ertiga Car bearing Reg.No.KL-22-S- 0296 in front of Siva Wood Industries near Chenkavila Junction, Karode Village, for the purpose of sale in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act and thereby committed the offences.
4. I have heard Sri.Shajin S. Hameed, 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 she is not entitled to bail at this stage.
6. The applicant was arrested on 01.10.2025 and since then she 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