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) 8498

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
ASHIQ IQBAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 542 OF 2026 | CRIME NO.666/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.SAM ISAAC POTHIYIL, SMT.S.SURAJA, SHRI.MUHAMMED SUHAIR C.A, SMT.AKSHAYA N.K, SMT.BINEETHA THOMAS
For the Respondents: SRI.M.C. ASHI, SR. PP

The requirement of informing an arrested person of the grounds for arrest is mandatory, and non-compliance renders the arrest illegal.

Headnote:This application for bail is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The applicant contended that his arrest lacked proper communication of grounds, violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The court reaffirmed the constitutional obligation to inform the arrested individual of the grounds promptly and the statutory requirements under the BNSS, 2023, specifically highlighting the legality of the arrest process. The court ultimately dismissed the bail application, affirming the compliance of arrest procedures.

Table of Content
1. bail application filed under bnss. (Para 1)
2. accused charged with smuggling drugs. (Para 2)
3. arguments about legal grounds for the arrest. (Para 4 , 5)
4. court's examination of arrest and grounds communication. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
5. precedents affirm requirement to inform arrest grounds. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 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.1 in Crime No.666/2025 of Thadiyittaparamba Police Station, Ernakulam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 .

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 07.09.2025 at 07:05 a.m., the accused Nos.1 to 3, with the intention of making profit, smuggled 91.00 kgs of dry ganja in plastic cover inside the car bearing registration No.WB- 57-K-6776 travelled from Pookkattupady to Chembaraki and thereby committed the above said 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 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 07.09.2025 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 Preve

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