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) 17008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
ADARSH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 992 OF 2026 | CRIME NO.9/2026



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

Non-compliance with the requirement to inform an arrested individual of the grounds for arrest violates fundamental rights and can render the arrest illegal if not rectified.

Headnote:This application seeks bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, alleging illegal arrest due to non-communication of grounds as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The Court emphasized the mandatory requirement of informing arrestees about grounds for their arrest, stating that failure to do so would violate their fundamental rights. The applicant's claim regarding lack of communication was examined against established legal precedents, concluding the formalities were duly followed, and ultimately leading to the dismissal of the bail application.

Table of Content
1. summary of the facts regarding the applicant's arrest and the specifics of the crime. (Para 2)
2. discussion on the requirement of informing the arrested about the grounds. (Para 4 , 5)
3. analysis of supreme court directives pertaining to grounds of arrest. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 12)
4. final ruling stating the bail application dismissal. (Para 11)
5. key principles emerging from the judgment regarding arrest communication. (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.1 in Crime No.9/2026 of Excise Range Office, Ernakulam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22 (c) and 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the NDPS Act)

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

22.1.2026 at 7.45 am, the applicant and the remaining accused were found in possession of 252.487 grams of MDMA and 1.844 grams of ganja in Room No.109 of Classic Tourist Home and Lodge in contravention of the NDPS Act.

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 22.1.2026 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]

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