IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
2026:KER:41200
BAIL APPL. NO. 3032 OF 2026
CRIME NO.279/2026 OF Varappuzha Police Station, Ernakulam
PETITIONER/ACCUSEDNO.1:
BIBIN C.S, AGED 26 YEARS
CHANDANA PARAMBIL, INDHIRAGANDHI ROAD, KOTTUVALLY,
KOONAMMAVU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683518
BY ADVS. 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
RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VARAPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,, PIN
- 683517
SRI.THOMAS SABU VADAKEKUTU
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2026 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1948
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
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.279/2026 of Varapuzha Police Station, Ernakulam 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 24.4.2026 at about 12.17 pm, the applicant and the accused No.2 were found in possession of 14.50 gm of MDMA which was kept in the dash board of the Innova car bearing registration No.KL-07-BN-7470, while the vehicle was parked on Olanadu Road, Puthanpally in contravention of the NDPS Act and thereby committed the offences.
4. I have heard Smt. Saipooja, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. Thomas Sabu Vadakekutu, the learned 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 BNSS 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 24.4.2026 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 BNSS lists cases when police may arrest a person without a warrant. Section 47 of BNSS 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 of commission of offences under the provisions of UAPA or for that m
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.