Kerala High Court
Hari Krishnan @ Hari @ Myna vs State Of Kerala Represented By The … on 3 August, 2026
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
CNR : KLHC010551152026
B.A.No.4101/2026
1
2026:KER:58927
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2026 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1948
BAIL APPL. NO. 4101 OF 2026
CRIME NO.739/2025 OF Karunagapally Police Station, Kollam
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5:
HARI KRISHNAN @ HARI @ MYNA
AGED 30 YEARS, KANNADI KIZHAKKETHIL, MEMANA,
OCHIRA, KOLLAM DIST., PIN - 690526
BY ADVS. SRI.V.T.RAGHUNATH
SMT.C.V.RAJALAKSHMI
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
SRI.THOMAS SABU VADAKEKUT, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.08.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CNR : KLHC010551152026
B.A.No.4101/2026
2
2026:KER:58927
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.739/2025 of Karunagappally Police Station, Kollam District.
The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 61(2)(a),
103(1), 111(2)(a), 118(1), 238(a), 239, 249(a), 332(a), 340 and
351 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act,1908.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that, there were
cases and counter cases between the accused No.1 and the
deceased Santhosh during the last few years. There was an
incident where the deceased had stabbed the accused No.1.
Accused Nos.1 to 9 had entered into a criminal conspiracy to
cause death of Santhosh aged 45 years. In furtherance of the said
conspiracy, the accused Nos.2 to 7 had trespassed into the
residence of the deceased at about 02:30 a.m. on 27.03.2025 and
hacked him to death. The accused No.2 was also with the
assailants and he had blasted an explosive at the scene of
CNR : KLHC010551152026
B.A.No.4101/2026
3
2026:KER:58927
occurrence. According to the prosecution, the murder was
committed at the behest of the accused No.1 in furtherance of the
conspiracy.
4. I have heard Sri. Raghunath V.T., the learned counsel
for the applicant and Sri. Thomas Sabu Vadakekut, 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 Special 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 31.03.2025 and since
then he is in judicial custody.
7. Though prima facie there are materials on record to
CNR : KLHC010551152026
B.A.No.4101/2026
4
2026:KER:58927
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
CNR : KLHC010551152026
B.A.No.4101/2026
5
2026:KER:58927
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 matter any other offence(s) has
a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about the
grounds of arrest in writing and a copy of such written grounds of
arrest has to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of
course and without exception at the earliest. It was observed that
the right to be informed about the grounds of arrest flows from
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, and any infringement of
this fundamental right would vitiate the process of arrest and
remand.
CNR : KLHC010551152026
B.A.No.4101/2026
6
2026:KER:58927
10. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others
(2025 SCC OnLine SC 269], the Supreme Court, while dealing with
the offences under IPC, reiterated that the requirement of
informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a
formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement. It was
further held that if the grounds of arrest are not informed, as soon
as may be after the arrest, it would amount to the violation of the
fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1)
of the Constitution, and the arrest will be rendered illegal. It was
also observed in the said judgment that although there is no
requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing,
there is no harm if the grounds of arrest are communicated in
writing and when arrested accused alleges non-compliance with
the requirements of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, the burden
will always be on the Investigating Officer/Agency to prove
compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1).
11. In Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra
Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228), the Supreme Court held
that reading out the grounds of arrest stated in the arrest warrant
would tantamount to compliance of Art.22 of the Constitution. It
was further held that when an accused person is arrested on
CNR : KLHC010551152026
B.A.No.4101/2026
7
2026:KER:58927
warrant and it contains the reason for arrest, there is no
requirement to furnish the grounds for arrest separately and a
reading of the warrant to him itself is sufficient compliance with
the requirement of informing the grounds of his arrest. In State
of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702), it
was held that neither the Constitution nor the relevant statute
prescribes a specific form or insists upon a written communication
in every case. Substantial compliance of the same is sufficient
unless demonstrable prejudice is shown. It was further held that
individualised grounds are not an inflexible requirement post
Bansal and absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render
the arrest illegal unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or
denial of an opportunity to defend. However, in Ahmed Mansoor
v. State (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2650), another two Judge Bench of
the Supreme Court distinguished the principles declared in Sri
Darshan (supra) and observed that in Sri Darshan (supra), the
facts governing are quite different in the sense that it was a case
dealing with the cancellation of bail where the chargesheet had
been filed and the grounds of detention were served immediately.
Recently, in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and
Another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356), the three Judge Bench of
CNR : KLHC010551152026
B.A.No.4101/2026
8
2026:KER:58927
the Supreme Court held that grounds of arrest must be informed
to the arrested person in each and every case without exception
and the mode of communication of such grounds must be in
writing in the language he understands. It was further held that
non supply of grounds of arrest in writing to the arrestee prior to
or immediately after arrest would not vitiate such arrest provided
said grounds are supplied in writing within a reasonable time and
in any case two hours prior to the production of arrestee before
the Magistrate.
12. A Single Bench of this Court in Yazin S. v. State of
Kerala (2025 KHC OnLine 2383) and in Rayees R.M. v. State of
Kerala (2025 KHC 2086) held that in NDPS cases, since the
quantity of contraband determines whether the offence is bailable
or non bailable, specification of quantity is mandatory for effective
communication of grounds. It was further held that burden is on
the police to establish proper communication of the arrest. In
Vishnu N.P. v. State of Kerala (2025 KHC OnLine 1262),
another Single Judge of this Court relying on all the decisions of
the Supreme Court mentioned above specifically observed that the
arrest intimation must mention not only the penal section but also
the quantity of contraband allegedly seized.
CNR : KLHC010551152026
B.A.No.4101/2026
9
2026:KER:58927
13. The following principles of law emerge from the above
mentioned binding precedents.
(i) The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee
the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all
statutes including offences under IPC/BNS.
(ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in
writing to the arrestee in the language he understands.
(iii) In cases where the arresting officer/person is unable
to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing soon after arrest,
it be so done orally. The said grounds be communicated in writing
within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior
to the production of the arrestee for the remand proceedings
before the Magistrate.
(iv) In NDPS cases, specification of quantity of the
contraband seized is mandatory for effective communication of
grounds of arrest.
(v) In case of non compliance of the above, the arrest
and the subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the
arrestee should be set free forthwith.
(vi) The burden is on the police to establish the proper
communication of grounds of arrest.
CNR : KLHC010551152026
B.A.No.4101/2026
10
2026:KER:58927
(vii) The filing of charge sheet and cognizance of the
order cannot validate unconstitutional arrest.
14. I went through the case diary. On a perusal of the
case diary, it is noticed that the notice under Section 47 of BNSS
to the arrestee and the arrest intimation under Section 48 of BNSS
to the relative have been furnished. However, it does not contain
any grounds for arrest. In short, the grounds of arrest were not
communicated to the applicant and his relatives in terms of
Sections 47 and 48 of BNSS and the dictum laid down in the
aforementioned decisions. Hence, I hold that the requirement of
Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Sections 47 and 48 of BNSS
have not been satisfied. Therefore, applicant’s arrest and his
subsequent remand are nonest and he is entitled to be released
on bail.
In the result, the application is allowed on the following
conditions: –
(i) The applicant shall be released on bail on executing a
bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent
sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the
jurisdictional Magistrate/Court.
(ii) The applicant shall fully co-operate with the
CNR : KLHC010551152026
B.A.No.4101/202611
2026:KER:58927
investigation.
(iii) The applicant shall appear before the investigating
officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m. every Saturday until
further orders. He shall also appear before the investigating officer
as and when required.
(iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence of a like
nature while on bail.
(v) The applicant shall not attempt to contact any of the
prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in
any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any
witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.
(vi) The applicant shall not leave the State of Kerala
without the permission of the trial Court.
(vii) The application, if any, for deletion/modification of
the bail conditions or cancellation of bail on the grounds of
violating the bail conditions shall be filed at the jurisdictional
court.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
kp
CNR : KLHC010551152026
B.A.No.4101/2026
12
2026:KER:58927
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 4101 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 . COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE
GROUNDS OF ARREST PREPARED IN RESPECT OF
THE PETITIONER DATED 31.03.2025 AND
ALLEGED TO BE GIVEN TO PETITIONER
Annexure 2 COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ARREST
INTIMATION DATED 31.03.2025
Annexure 3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE FREE COPY OF THE ORDER
OF THE SESSIONS COURT KOLLAM DATED
25.04.2026 DENYING BAIL TO THE PETITIONER
