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) 34891

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

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