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) 9528

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
DEOAL K. VARGHESE, ANJU DAVIS – Appellant
Versus
NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU, THE SUB INSPECTOR – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 12396 OF 2025 | CRIME NO.3/2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE
For the Respondents: SRI.R.VINU RAJ, SRI.K.K.SUBEESH

Failure to communicate arrest grounds to relatives vitiates arrest legality under Article 22(1).

Headnote:The application seeks regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS. The petitioners, accused Nos.1 and 2, were implicated in O.R. No.3/2022 regarding the illegal possession of Ketamine traceable to an intercepted parcel. The court determined the arrest's illegality due to non-communication of grounds to relatives. Issues included compliance with Article 22(1) and potential bail conditions. The court's reasoning emphasized ensuring family notification to uphold rights. The application was therefore allowed under specified conditions.

Table of Content
1. conclusion and bail conditions set by the court. (Para 4 , 8)
2. arguments concerning the communication of arrest grounds. (Para 5)
3. court's observations about the legality of the arrest. (Para 6 , 7)

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 applicants are accused Nos.1 and 2 in O.R. No.3/2022 of Narcotics Control Bureau, Kochi, Ernakulam District. The offences alleged are punishable underSection 8(c) read with Sections 22(c), 23(c), 28 and 29 of theNarcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985(for short ‘the NDPS Act’). 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 10.10.2022, on the basis of a reliable information, a DHL courier was intercepted at DHL Express, Ernakulam, and 620 grams of Ketamine was found concealed in the parcel and were seized. The substance was believed to be Amphetamine at the time of seizure and on chemical analysis it was found that the substance was Ketamine Hydrochloride. As per the documents that were seized along with the parcel and contraband, the parcel was booked using a copy of an Aadhaar Card in the name of Aparna.S. During the investigation, the person who runs the courier office stated that the courier was booked through him by a male and female at his courier shop. A CCTV video recording was also provided by the courier office person, in which a male and female can be seen booking a parcel. On investigation, it is found that the Aadhaar card number was incorrect and the address mentioned in the Aadhaar for booking the courier was nonexistent. While so, on 28.06.2025, information was received from a reliable source that a person named Deoal (applicant No.1) and his wife, Anju Davis (applicant No.2) are Ketamine drug traffickers. They owned a resort named Sunset Valley Resort, Mundakkayam and they live on the premises of the property. On the basis of the aforesaid information, a search of the house inside the Sunset Valley Resort, in which Deoal and Anju Davis were living, was conducted on 29.06.2025, and substances believed to be Ketamine and Ganja were seized. During the search of the house, copies of the two Aadhaar cards were recovered in which photos of Deoal and Anju Davis were seen. Thereby, NCB Cochin registered a case, OR No.7/2025 and an occurrence report has been registered to JFMC-I, Peerumedu. Based on the information, photos of Deoal and Anju Davis in OR No.7/2025 were identified using case records from OR No.3/2022. The identification was further supported by CCTV footage and a fake Aadhaar copy, which suggested that Deoal and Anju Davis are the same individuals who booked an Australia- bound parcel containing 620 grams of Ketamine. Thereby the applicants committed the aforementioned offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Shaijan C.George, the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri.R.Vinu Raj, the learned Special Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have been in custody since 29.06.2025 and the grounds of arrest were not communicated in accordance with law at the time of their arrest. The learned Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the bail application and submitted that the grounds of arrest were duly communicated.

6. Though prima facie there are materials on record to connect the applicants with the crime, since the applicants have raised a question of absence of communication of the grounds of their arrest, let me consider the same.

7. It is now well settled that the requirement of informing a person of the grounds for arrest is a mandatory requirement of Art.22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of BNSS and absence of the same would render the arrest illegal (See. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others [(2024) 7 SCC 576] , Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC 254] , Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others (2025 SCC OnLine S

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