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) 13759

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
SHIHABUDHEEN V K – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 994 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.SAMSUDIN, SHRI.JASNEED JAMAL, SMT.LIRA A.B., SMT.DEVIKA E.D.
For the Respondents: SRI. M.C.ASHI, SR.PP

Failure to inform an arrested person of the grounds for arrest can render the arrest unlawful; however, the specification of contraband quantity applies only to accused in possession.

Headnote:The petitioner seeks bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 after being charged under the NDPS Act for allegations related to MDMA possession. The Court considers whether there was adherence to statutory requirements regarding arrest communication as per Article 22(1) of the Constitution and BNSS. The Court concludes that the applicant was properly informed of grounds for arrest, making the bail application subject to dismissal.

Table of Content
1. allegations concerning contraband possession. (Para 2 , 3)
2. mandatory rights during arrest. (Para 5)
3. requirements for arrest communication as per law. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)

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.3 in Crime No.807/2025 of Karipur Police Station, Malappuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22(c), and 23(c) read with Section 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act').

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the accused No.1 who came from Muscat was caught at the Karipur International Airport with 949.26 grams of MDMA. It is alleged that accused No.1 brought the contraband in order to supply it to the accused Nos.2 and 3, who were present in a car bearing Registration No.KL-11-AE-1363 outside the airport. After realizing that accused No.1 was intercepted, they escaped from the airport.

4. I have heard Sri. Samsudin Panolin, 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 since the applicant was not furnished with the grounds of arrest, his arrest was illegal and he 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

19.10.2025, and since then, he has been 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 the failure to communicate the written grounds of arrest would render the arrest illegal, necessitating the release of the accused, is no longer res integra. In Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others [(2024) 7 SCC 576] and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC 254] , the Supreme Court has held that the requirement of informing a person of the written grounds of arrest in writing is a mandatory requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS and absence of the same would render the arrest illegal. Later in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others (2025 SCC OnLine SC 269), it was reiterated that the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest

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