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) 14769

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
SHIHABUDHEEN.P – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 1032 OF 2026 | CRIME NO.1131/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH, SRI.LIBIN STANLEY, SMT.SAIPOOJA, SRI.SADIK ISMAYIL, SMT.R.GAYATHRI, SRI.M.MAHIN HAMZA, SHRI.ALWIN JOSEPH, SHRI.BENSON AMBROSE
For the Respondents: SRI.M.C. ASHI

Notification of arrest grounds is constitutionally mandated and noncompliance renders arrest illegal, barring compelling reasons.

Headnote:This case involves the applicant's plea for bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, citing a violation of his right to be informed of the grounds of arrest. The court examined the statutory and constitutional mandates pertaining to the communication of arrest grounds and concluded that all necessary formalities were duly followed. The court determined that the arrest was lawful and denied the bail application, upholding the accused's connection to the crime.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The ground of arrest and the reasons for arrest were communicated to the applicant at the time of arrest, and the notice under Section 47 indicates this communication (!) . (!) - The case discusses that informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest is mandatory under constitutional and statutory provisions, and noncompliance can render arrest illegal and affect remand (!) (!) . (!) (!) - If grounds are not communicated in writing, they should be given orally and later in writing within a reasonable time, at least two hours prior to remand before the Magistrate (!) . (!) - NDPS-specific communications require including the quantity of contraband for effective communication of grounds (!) . (!) - The court held the applicant not entitled to bail because grounds were intimated and proper formalities complied (!) . (!) - Burden rests on police to establish proper communication of grounds of arrest (!) . (!) - The filing of charge sheet or cognizance does not validate an unconstitutional arrest (!) . (!)

How to determine if grounds of arrest were communicated to an arrestee in writing or orally?

What is the consequence if the grounds of arrest were not properly communicated to the arrestee?

What are the required timeframes for communicating the grounds of arrest before remand proceedings?


Table of Content
1. bail application filed under bnss. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding arrest and grounds notification. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's observations on grounds of arrest requirement. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. outcome of bail application. (Para 13)

ORDER

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.5 in Crime No.1131/2025 of Kondotty Police Station, Malappuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22 (c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (for short 'the NDPS' Act').

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on

05.10.2025, the accused Nos.1 to 7 were found in possession of 152.64 grams of MDMA along with 0.65 grams of Ecstasy, kept in 2 cars bearing Reg. Nos. KL-84-C7458 & KL-84-D-3342 respectively, with the intention of sale, and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri.P.Mohamed Sabah, 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 06.12.2025 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 Prevention Act,1967 (for short, ‘UAPA’), it was held that any person arrested for an allegation

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