Kerala High Court
Pankaj Bhandari vs State Of Kerala on 13 February, 2026
2026:KER:13173
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 24TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 52 OF 2026
CRIME NO.3700/2025, 3701/2025 OF CRIME BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER:
PANKAJ BHANDARI
AGED 52 YEARS, SON OF BADAN RAJ BHANDARI
A22, KENT APARTMENTS, RITHERTON ROAD, CHENNAI, PIN -
600007
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.)
SRI.S.VISHNU (V-736)
SRI.V.S.VISWAMBHARAN
SHRI.NAIK CHIRAG DHANANJAY
SMT.MATHRAWALA NOOPUR VISHAL
SHRI.MAHESH BHANU S.
SRI.R.ANIL
SHRI.SUJESH MENON V.B.
SMT.LILIN LAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
SIT CRIME BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY SRI.GRACIOUS KURIAKOSE, ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
PROSECUTION
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.01.2026, THE COURT ON 13.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of February, 2026
This writ petition has been filed by Pankaj Bhandari, who is
the 9th accused in Crime No.3701/2025 and 12 th accused in Crime
No.3700/2025, registered by Crime Branch, Kollam. The prayers
are as under:
“i. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that the arrest
of the Petitioner on 19.12.2025 in FIR No. 3700 of 2025
and FIR No. 3701 of 2025 registered by the Crime
Branch, Kollam is illegal, unconstitutional and
violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of
India.
ii. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside
the remand order dated 19.12.2025 in FIR No. 3700 of
2025 and FIR No. 3701 of 2025 registered by the Crime
Branch, Kollam and all consequential and subsequent
remand orders passed by the Hon’ble Enquiry
Commission & Special Judge (Vigilance), Kollam, and
declare the same as null and void having been
rendered in breach of mandatory constitutional and
statutory safeguards.
iii. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to hold and declare
that the continued custody of the Petitioner pursuant
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 3to the aforesaid illegal arrest and vitiated remand
orders is unsustainable in law.
iv. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the release of
the Petitioner in FIR No. 3700 of 2025 and FIR No.
3701 of 2025 registered by the Crime Branch.
v. Any other relief(s) or order(s) that this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the
case.”
2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution appearing
for the prosecution. Perused the relevant records.
3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued at
length based on the decisions of the Apex Court mainly to contend
that the arrest of the accused in the above crimes recorded on
19.12.2025 is illegal, since his fundamental and statutory rights as
explained by the Apex Court have been violated. The argument
notes filed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is as
under:
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 4
1. The Petitioner has challenged his (i) arrest dt. 19.12.2025, (ii)
remand order dt. 19.12.2025 and (iii) all subsequent remands
– praying for his forthwith release from illegal custody in
view of the violation of his constitutional and statutory rights
as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the following rulings:
1.1. Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8
SCC 254 (“Prabir Purkayastha”)
1.2.Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 5 SCC 799
(“Vihaan Kumar”)
1.3.Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2025
SCC OnLine 256 (“Mihir Rajesh Shah”)
1.4.Joginder Kumar v. State of UP & Ors., 1994 4 SCC
260 (“Joginder Kumar”)
2. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid rulings required the
Respondents to ensure that the following
constitutional/statutory safeguards were adhered to in
making the Petitioner’s arrest and subjecting him to
subsequent remand:
2.1.Issue-1: The written Grounds of Arrest provided to the
Petitioner are mechanical and vague and do not justify/or
disclose necessity of arrest of the Petitioner. [Ground P to
T/WP]
[NOTE: See Prabir Purkayastha @ para 37 & 48]
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 5“37. The interpretation given by the learned Single Judge that
the grounds of arrest were conveyed to the accused in writing
vide the arrest memo is unacceptable on the face of the record
because the arrest memo does not indicate the grounds of
arrest being incorporated in the said document. Column No.
9 of the arrest memo(Annexure P-7) which is being
reproduced hereinbelow simply sets out the ‘reasons for
arrest’ which are formal in nature and can be generally
attributed to any person arrested on accusation of an offence
whereas the ‘grounds of arrest’ would be personal in nature
and specific to the person arrested.
“9. Reason for arrest
a. Prevent accused person from committing any further
offence.
b. For proper investigation of the offence.
c. To prevent the accused person from causing the evidence of
the offence to disappear or tempering with such evidence in
any manner.
d. To prevent such person from making any inducement
threat or promise to any person acquainted the facts of the
case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the
Court or to the Police officer.
e. As unless such person is arrested, his presence in the Court
whenever required cannot be ensured.”
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 6
48. It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that there is a
significant difference in the phrase “reasons for arrest” and
“grounds of arrest”. The “reasons for arrest” as indicated in
the arrest memo are purely formal parameters viz. to prevent
the accused person from committing any further offence; for
proper investigation of the offence; to prevent the accused
person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear
or tampering with such evidence in any manner; to prevent
the arrested person for making inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so
as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or
to the investigating officer. These reasons would commonly
apply to any person arrested on charge of a crime whereas
the “grounds of arrest” would be required to contain all such
details in hand of the investigating officer which necessitated
the arrest of the accused. Simultaneously, the grounds of
arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested
accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as
the to provide him an opportunity of defending himself
against custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus, the “grounds
of arrest” would invariably be personal to accused and
cannot be equated with the “reasons of arrest” which are
general in nature.
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 7
2.1.1.Petitioner’s submissions:
2.1.1.1. Written Grounds of Arrest are to be furnished to the arrestee
in all offences at the earliest without any exception [see:
@para 19 of Prabir Purkayashta & @para 9 of Mihir
Rajesh Shah].
2.1.1.2. Pre-determined, Vague and cyclostyled Grounds of Arrest
merely stating “your arrest is inevitable” were supplied to the
Petitioner. [see: Grounds of Arrest in FIR 3700 @
pg.114/WP & FIR 3701 @ pg 116/WP]. The same are
general and are common & applicable to any and all accused
in the matter.
2.1.1.3. The respective Grounds of Arrest @ pg 114/WP (FIR 3700)
and @pg 116/WP (FIR 3701) are verbatim identical to the
reasons of arrest in the Arrest Memos @ pgs.98-99/WP
(FIR 3700) & pgs. 109-110/WP (FIR 3701), which is
impermissible and violative of paras 37 & 48 of Prabir
Purkayashta.
2.1.2.Respondent’s Reply:
2.1.2.1. “With regard to Grounds P to T, it is submitted that the
grounds of arrests were clearly stated in the notices given to
the petitioner and to his staff and written in the language
known to him and he was also communicated orally
about his specific role and the reason for his arrest
and the necessity of arrest in the cases.” [@ Para 23;
pg 6-7/Reply].
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 8
2.1.2.2. During oral submissions on 21.01.2026, the Ld. ADGP placed
reliance on Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of
Andra Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228
(“Kasireddy”) @ para 28 to contest that that the ground
of arrest need not provide all details.
2.1.3. Petitioner’s Rebuttal:
2.1.3.1. While the Petitioner’s Submissions make it clear that no
justification for or necessity of arrest are disclosed in the
Grounds of Arrest. The Respondent @ para 23 of its own
Reply/Counter Affidavit claims that the reasons and
necessity of arrest were communicated orally. Which is
squarely in the teeth of the law laid down in Prabir
Purkayastha & Mihir Rajesh Shah.
2.1.3.2. Further, the reliance on Kasireddy is misplaced as in the said
case, grounds of arrest were provided to the case petitioner,
his father and also a copy of the remand application was
provided to the case petitioner prior to the remand order,
which is not the case the present matter.
2.2. Issue-2: Grounds of arrest not provided to the
Petitioner’s relatives or nominated person.
[Ground N&O/WP]
[NOTE: See Vihaan Kumar @ para 41, 42]
“41. The issue on the requirement of communication of
grounds of arrest to the person arrested, as mandated under
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which has also been
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 9
incorporated in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002 under Section 19 thereof has been succinctly reiterated
in this judgment. The constitutional mandate of informing the
grounds of arrest to the person arrested in writing has been
explained in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) so as to be
meaningful to serve the intended purpose which has been
reiterated in Prabir Purkayastha (supra). The said
constitutional mandate has been incorporated in the statute
under Section 50 of the CrPC (Section 47 of BNSS). It may
also be noted that the aforesaid provision of requirement for
communicating the grounds of arrest, to be purposeful, is
also required to be communicated to the friends, relatives or
such other persons of the accused as may be disclosed or
nominated by the arrested person for the purpose of giving
such information as provided under Section 50A of the CrPC.
As may be noted, this is in the addition of the requirement as
provided under Section 50(1) of the CrPC.
42. The purpose of inserting Section 50A of the CrPC, making
it obligatory on the person making arrest to inform about the
arrest to the friends, relatives or persons nominated by the
arrested person, is to ensure that they would able to take
immediate and prompt actions to secure the release of the
arrested person as permissible under the law. The arrested
person, because of his detention, may not have immediate
and easy access to the legal process for securing his release,
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 10
which would otherwise be available to the friends, relatives
and such nominated persons by way of engaging lawyers,
briefing them to secure release of the detained person on bail
at the earliest. Therefore, the purpose of communicating the
grounds of arrest to the detenue, and in addition to his
relatives as mentioned above is not merely a formality but to
enable the detained person to know the reasons for his arrest
but also to provide the necessary opportunity to him through
his relatives, friends or nominated persons to secure his
release at the earliest possible opportunity for actualising the
fundamental right to liberty and life as guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution. Hence, the requirement of
communicating the grounds of arrest in writing is not only to
the arrested person, but also to the friends, relatives or such
other person as may be disclosed or nominated by the
arrested person, so as to make the mandate of Article 22(1) of
the Constitution meaningful and effective failing which, such
arrest may be rendered illegal.”
2.2.1.Petitioner’s submissions:
2.2.1.1. Written Grounds of Arrest are to be furnished to the
arrestee’s, “friends, relatives, such other persons of the
accused as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested
person” in all offences at the earliest without any exception
[see: Vihaan Kumar@ para 41, 42].
2.2.1.2. Grounds of Arrest supplied to the Petitioner’s wife via email
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 11dt. 20.12.2025 @ 2:26 pm [@pg. 117/WP] i.e. on the day
following his remand.
2.2.2. Respondent’s Reply:
2.2.2.1. “the written communication of the grounds of arrests were
given to the petitioner and Mr. Rajasekhar, his staff, well in
advance as mandated by law and in the language known to
them on the same day ie, 19.12.2025, and about 5 hours
before his production before the Hon’ble Enquiry
Commissioner & Special Judge Court, Kollam… In addition to
it, the grounds of arrests were also communicated through
email to Mrs. Kala Bhandari, his wife.” [@ Para 22; pg
6/Reply].
2.2.3. Petitioner’s Rebuttal:
2.2.3.1. While the Petitioner’s Submissions make it clear that no
justification for or necessity of arrest are disclosed in the
Grounds of Arrest.
2.2.3.2. The Petitioner never appointed Mr. Rajshekhar as his
nominee. He could neither be treated as a “relative” nor as a
meaningful nominee capable of taking steps to secure the
Petitioner’s liberty. He was simply accompanying the
Petitioner. The alleged supply of grounds to such a person is,
in law and in substance, no compliance at all. The
Respondent is aware of this fact and therefore it tried to
supply ground of arrest – post remand to Petitioner’s wife.
2.2.3.3. There was no requirement of supplying the same to the
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 12Petitioner’s wife – had communication to Mr. Rajshekhar
been enough in law. Respondent’s own conduct show non-
compliance.
2.3. Issue-3: The Grounds of Arrest were not furnished to
the Petitioner in sufficient time to enable him to effectively
oppose the remand proceedings.
[Ground Z-II/WP]
[NOTE: Mihir Rajesh Shah @ para 52, 53]
“52. We thus hold, that, in cases where the police are already
in possession of documentary material furnishing a cogent
basis for the arrest, the written grounds of arrest must be
furnished to the arrestee on his arrest. However, in
exceptional circumstances such as offences against body or
property committed in flagrante delicto, where informing the
grounds of arrest in writing on arrest is rendered
impractical, it shall be sufficient for the police officer or other
person making the arrest to orally convey the same to the
person at the time of arrest. Later, a written copy of grounds
of arrest must be supplied to the arrested person within a
reasonable time and in no event later than two hours prior to
production of the arrestee before the magistrate for remand
proceedings. The remand papers shall contain the grounds of
arrest and in case there is delay in supply thereof, a note
indicating a cause for it be included for the information of the
magistrate.
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 13
53. The above indicated lower limit of two hours minimum
interval before the production is grounded in the functional
necessity so that the right as provided to an arrestee under
the Constitution and the statute is safeguarded effectively.
This period would ensure that the counsel has adequate time
to scrutinize the basis of arrest and gather relevant material
to defend the arrestee proficiently and capably while
opposing the remand. Any shorter interval may render such
preparation illusory, thereby resulting in non-compliance of
the constitutional and statutory mandate. The two-hour
threshold before production for remand thus strikes a
judicious balance between safeguarding the arrestee’s
constitutional rights under Article 22(1) and preserving the
operational continuity of criminal investigations.”
2.3.1.Petitioner’s submissions:
2.3.1.1. The Written Grounds of Arrest were required to be furnished
to the Petitioner in a case where the police were in prior
possession of documentary material, upon his arrest and in
any event at least 2 hours prior to his production in remand
proceedings2.3.2. Respondent’s Reply:
2.3.2.1. “With regard to Grounds A to O, the allegation of the
petitioner that his arrest is illegal is not maintainable in law
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 14because all the procedures of arrest have been complied with
while making the arrest of the petitioner and the written
communication of the grounds of arrests were given to the
petitioner and Mr. Rajasekhar, his staff, well in advance as
mandated by law and in the language known to them on the
same day ie, 19.12.2025, and about 5 hours before his
production before the Hon’ble Enquiry Commissioner &
Special Judge Court, Kollam.” [@ Para 22; pg 6/Reply].
2.3.3. Petitioner’s Rebuttal:
2.3.3.1. The Petitioner was arrested at 4:35 PM (FIR 3701) and 4:50
PM (FIR 3700) in Trivandrum and was immediately
thereafter taken for his medical examination. Post which the
Petitioner was transported around 2 hours for production
before the Ld. Spl. Court, Kollam.
2.3.3.2. Assuming the Respondent’s case to be true and the Petitioner
having been provided the ground of arrest 5 hours prior to
his production at 10:00 PM. However, during that period, the
Petitioner was taken for his medical examination and then
transported for 2 hours. The Petitioner was also not afforded
the opportunity to speak to an advocate. Thus, the exercise of
providing the Petitioner with the namesake Grounds of
Arrest and with no time to consult or reasonable ensure
presence of counsel- was illusory. The Petitioner was
produced with a dying hurry at nigh post court working
hours to defeat his legal rights.
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 15
2.3.3.3. As such, the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mihir
Rajesh Shah [@ Para 52 & 53] of providing the grounds
of arrest at least 2 hours prior. (that too in flagrante delicto
cases, whereas the present case was documentary with
investigation going on for some time) to an accused’s
production in remand to protect the accused’s fundamental
rights and provide his advocate with sufficient time to
scrutinize the basis of the arrest and gather material to
proficiently and capably oppose remand was defeated.
2.4. Issue-4: Non-supply of the Remand Application (in any case
in Malayalam, a language wholly unknown to the Petitioner)
to the Petitioner & the Remand Report containing altogether
different grounds for the Petitioner’s arrest.
[Ground Z-II/WP]
[NOTE: See Prabir Purkayastha @ para 48, 49]
“48. It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that there is
a significant difference in the phrase “reasons for arrest” and
“grounds of arrest”. The “reasons for arrest” as indicated in
the arrest memo are purely formal parameters viz. to prevent
the accused person from committing any further offence; for
proper investigation of the offence; to prevent the accused
person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear
or tampering with such evidence in any manner; to prevent
the arrested person for making inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 16
as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or
to the investigating officer. These reasons would commonly
apply to any person arrested on charge of a crime whereas
the “grounds of arrest” would be required to contain all such
details in hand of the investigating officer which necessitated
the arrest of the accused. Simultaneously, the grounds of
arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested
accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as
the to provide him an opportunity of defending himself
against custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus, the “grounds
of arrest” would invariably be personal to accused and
cannot be equated with the “reasons of arrest” which are
general in nature.
49. From the detailed analysis made above, there is no
hesitation in the mind of the court to reach to a conclusion
that the copy of the remand application in the purported
exercise of communication of the grounds of arrest in writing
was not provided to the appellant-accused or his counsel
before passing of the order of remand dated 4-10-2023 which
vitiates the arrest and subsequent remand of the appellant.”
2.4.1.Petitioner’s submissions:
2.4.1.1. The Petitioner was supplied only with cyclostyled grounds
asserting that arrest was “inevitable”.
2.4.1.2. While the Remand application filed by the Respondent before
the Ld. Spl. Court contained altogether different grounds for
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 17the Petitioner’s arrest as those contained in the purported
Grounds of Arrest.
2.4.1.3. The Remand Application, which was in Malayalam, a
language wholly unknown to the Petitioner (being from
Chennai), was not supplied to the Petitioner during the
remand proceedings.
2.4.1.4. A copy of the Remand Application was provided to the
Petitioner’s counsel only on 20.12.2025, i.e. the day following
his remand to Judicial Custody.
2.4.2. Respondent’s Reply:
2.4.2.1. “the copy of the remand report for the petitioner was
submitted before the Hon’ble Court at the time of production
of the petitioner before the Court, It is learned that though the
counsel of the petitioner was informed well in advance, the
counsel was not present at that time. The arrest of the
petitioner was informed to Advocate Mr. Satheesh…. on
19.12.2025 as per the choice of the petitioner. Later the
advocate called me back and enquired about the time of
production before the Hon’ble Enquiry Commissioner &
Special Judge Court, Kollam for which I replied promptly.
Actually the production of the accused was about two hours
later than the time I convened to the Advocate.” [@ Para 25;
pg 7/Reply].
2.4.3. Petitioner’s Rebuttal:
2.4.3.1. The so-called Grounds of Arrest [@ Pg. 100/WP] furnished
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 18to the Petitioner are merely cyclostyled, disclose no real or
substantive basis for arrest, and are a verbatim reproduction
of the arrest memo [@ Pg. 98/WP]. The detailed grounds
justifying arrest, if at all, are contained only in the remand
application, which was never supplied to the Petitioner. In
Prabir (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an
arrest memo without disclosure of actual grounds is legally
insufficient, and the present case squarely attracts the said
ratio.
2.4.3.2. The Counter Affidavit also does not contend that a copy of the
Remand Application was provided to the Petitioner. It is a
matter of record that the Remand Application [@pg.122-
134 (FIR 3700), 135-145 (FIR3701)/WP] was in
Malayalam. Further, it has not been denied in the Counter
Affidavit that the Court proceedings were in Malayalam.
2.5. Issue -5: Absence of legal consultation and representation
during arrest and remand proceedings
[Ground DD-EE/WP]
[NOTE: See Mihir Rajesh Shah @ para 35 & 36]
“35. It is pertinent to note that the arrested person must be
given early access to legal assistance to enable him to defend
himself and oppose the remand. The early access to legal
counsel becomes a quintessential object to ensure that the
personal liberty of the arrested person is protected. This
Court in Suhas Chakma v. Union of India while emphasizing
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 19on the need of pre-litigation assistance has directed that the
“Guidelines on Early Access to Justice at Pre-arrest, Arrest
and Remand Stage Framework” as framed by the National
Legal Services Authority, are to be diligently pursued. The
guidelines provide for legal assistance to the arrested person
at the stage before remand. The remand advocate shall
interact with the arrestee with the objective to inform him
about the allegations against him and the grounds being put
by the prosecution for seeking remand. The guidelines also
provide for making available the translated copy of
documents to the arrested person in the language he/she
understands. The purpose of securing legal assistance before
remand is not merely symbolic, but it is to ensure that the
accused is afforded an effective opportunity to oppose the
prayer for police custody and to place before the magistrate
any circumstances that may warrant refusal or limitation of
such custody. If the accused is not represented through a
Counsel, he/she should be made aware that he/she is entitled
for legal aid. As far as possible, it shall be ensured that every
accused person is represented by an advocate, if he is not able
to avail such assistance, he should be given free legal aid. A
three-judge Bench of this Court in Ashok v. State of Uttar
Pradesh held that an accused who is not represented by an
advocate is entitled for free legal aid at all material stages
starting from remand.
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 20
36. This statutory safeguard of legal assistance stands also
reinforced by Section 38 of the BNSS 2023, which confers
upon an arrested person the right to meet an advocate of his
choice during interrogation, albeit not throughout its course.
The object of this provision is to ensure meaningful access to
legal assistance at the earliest stage, so that the advocate,
once informed, may effectively exercise the rights available in
law, including representation during remand proceedings
and invocation of the right to seek bail.”
2.5.1. Petitioner’s submission:
2.5.1.1. The Petitioner was not permitted to speak to/consult an
advocate & was unrepresented at the time of remand, which
was conducted hurriedly on the same night (which was
conducted almost immediately (considering Medical and
Travel time to Kollam from Trivandrum) after his arrest
04:30 pm and 04:50 pm (practically post court hours),in
Malayalam a language he does not understand, defeating his
right to oppose remand.
2.5.2. Respondent’s Reply:
2.5.2.1. “The arrest of the petitioner was informed to Advocate Mr.
Satheesh, over his mobile phone number 9447139660 from
my official mobile phone number 9497996931 on 19.12.2025
as per the choice of the petitioner. Later the advocate called
me back and enquired about the time of production before the
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 21Hon’ble Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge Court,
Kollam for which I replied promptly. Actually the
production of the accused was about two hours late
than the time I conveyed to the Advocate.” [@ Para
25; pg 7/Reply].
2.5.3. Petitioner’s Rebuttal:
2.5.3.1. The Petitioner was hurriedly produced before the Ld. Spl.
Court on the very same day, well after regular court hours
and after nearly two hours of travel.
2.5.3.2. Despite the Respondent’s admission that the grounds of
arrest were orally communicated [@Para 23/Pg. 6-7/
Reply], the Petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to
consult or speak with an advocate.
2.5.3.3. Although the Respondent claims to have informed the
Petitioner’s advocate, admittedly an incorrect time was
conveyed [@Para 14/Pg. 4/ Reply], and the Petitioner was
produced nearly two hours later. The entire process was
conducted late at night, effectively preventing the Petitioner
or his relatives from arranging legal representation or
opposing the remand.
2.6. Issue -6:Absence of reason or necessity for arrest
[Ground N&O/WP]
[NOTE: See Joginder Kumar @ para 20]
“20. In India, Third Report of the National Police Commission
at p. 32 also suggested:
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 22
“An arrest during the investigation of a cognizable case may
be considered justified in one or other of the following
circumstances:
(i) The case involves a grave offence like murder, dacoity,
robbery, rape etc., and it is necessary to arrest the accused
and bring his movements under restraint to infuse confidence
among the terror- stricken victims
(ii) The accused is likely to abscond and evade the processes
of law.
(iii) The accused is given to violent behaviour and is likely to
commit further offences unless his movements are brought
under restraint.
(iv) he accused is a habitual offender and unless kept in
custody he is likely to commit similar offences again.
It a would be desirable to insist through departmental
instructions that police officer making an arrest should also
record in the case diary the reasons for making the arrest,
thereby clarifying his conformity to the specified
guidelines ….”
The above guidelines are merely the incidents of personal
liberty guaranteed under the Constitution of India. No arrest
can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so.
The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The
justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police
officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 23
to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person
can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem
of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a
mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a
person. It would be prudent for a police officer in the interest
of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and
perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made
without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some
investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a
complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person’s
complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying
a person of his liberty is a serious matter. The
recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the
constitutional concomitants of the fundamental right to
personal liberty and freedom. A person is not liable to arrest
merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There
must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the
officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and
justified. Except in a heinous offence, an arrest must be
avoided if a police officer issues notice to person to attend the
Station House and not to leave the Station without
permission would do.”
2.6.1.Petitioner’s submission:
2.6.1.1. The Petitioner, despite having cooperated with the
investigation, since inception, was arrested merely on the
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 24ground that since he has committed the offence his arrest was
inevitable. Despite arresting him the Respondent did not seek
the Petitioner’s police custody and sought only judicial
custody thereby establishing that the Petitioner’s custody was
not necessary for investigative purposes.
2.6.2. Respondent’s Reply:
2.6.2.1. “With regard to Grounds U to Y, the contention of the
petitioner that he was not taken into Police custody and the
arrest was made only for judicial custody is against the facts.
It is submitted that the petitioner was taken into Police
custody on 31.12.2025. His further Police custody is highly
necessary as the result of scientific examination from VSSC
Laboratory on examination of the samples taken from the
artefacts of Sabarimala Sreekovil has been received. The
obtained result is subjected to analysis and assessment. There
after the quantity of gold extracted from the artefacts can be
assessed. Moreover, the police custody period of the
petitioner is not over.” [@Para 24/Pg. 7/ Reply].
2.6.3. Petitioner’s Rebuttal:
2.6.3.1. The Respondent’s own reply undermines its case. Despite the
Petitioner being in custody since 19.12.2025 (more than one
month) and having continued to cooperate with the
investigation, the Investigating Officer sought police custody
for only one day, demonstrating the absence of any genuine
necessity for custodial interrogation and rendering the
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 25continued deprivation of liberty mechanical, unjustified, and
contrary to settled law.
3. All in all considering the chain of events in 19.12.2025, the
Respondent conducted the procedures in such a manner so as
to deliberately defeat the Petitioner’s fundamental rights and
secure the Petitioner’s illegal and unjustified custody. Thus
this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Petitioner’s arrest
and subsequent remand and illegal and direct his forthwith
release.
4. Opposing these contentions, it is argued by the learned
ADGP that in this case, the contentions raised by the learned senior
counsel for the petitioner stating that notice of arrest, arrest
intimation and grounds of arrest were not communicated to the
petitioner and other contentions raised in the argument notes are
baseless and according to the learned ADGP, Exts.P8 and P9 are the
notice of arrest issued to the accused. That apart, Exts.P13 and P15
are “Notice to inform the Arrestee, the Grounds and Reasons for
Arrest under Section 47 & 35(1)(b)(ii) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023″ (for short, ‘the BNSS’ hereinafter) to
highlight the grounds for arrest. It is also submitted that, as evident
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 26from Exts.P12 and P13 arrest memos, the arrest of the accused was
legal and was duly communicated to the accused as well as to Sri.
Rajasekharan S., who accompanied the accused at the time of arrest.
That apart Adv.Satheesh, the counsel opted by the accused, was
informed of the arrest through the mobile phone of the
Investigating Officer to the mobile phone of the counsel. Thus, in
letter and spirit, the directions of the Apex Court relating to arrest
have been complied with, and therefore, none of the contentions
raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner would
sustain.
5. The learned ADGP placed decision of the Apex Court in
Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh
reported in [2025 KHC 6542] wherein in paragraph Nos.36 to 39
it has been held as under:
“36. If a person is arrested on a warrant, the grounds for
reasons for the arrest is the warrant itself; if the warrant
is read over to him, that is sufficient compliance with the
requirement that he should be informed of the grounds
for his arrest. If he is arrested without a warrant, he
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 27must be told why he has been arrested. If he is arrested
for committing an offence, he must be told that he has
committed a certain offence for which he would be placed
on trial. In order to inform him that he has committed a
certain offence, he must be told of the acts done by him
which amounts to the offence. He must be informed of the
precise acts done by him for which he would be tried;
informing him merely of the law applicable to such acts
would not be enough. (See: Vimal Kishore Mehrotra
(supra))
37. In the overall view of the matter more particularly
having gone through the grounds of arrest we have
reached the conclusion that the requirement in terms of
para 21(b) as laid down in Vihaan Kumar (supra) could
be said to have been fulfilled.
38. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in
this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.
39. It is needless to clarify that it shall be open for the
person arrested viz. Kessireddy Raja Shekhar Reddy and
in judicial custody as on date to apply for regular bail
before the competent court. If any regular bail
application is pending as on date, the same shall be taken
up for hearing at the earliest and be decided in
accordance with law keeping in mind the well-settled
principles governing the grant of regular bail.”
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 28
6. The learned ADGP also placed reliance on the decision in
Vishnu N.P. v. State of Kerala reported in [2025 KHC 1262],
wherein in paragraph No.33 it has been held as under:
“33. Requirement of Article 22 is not statute specific
(a) Section 47 of the BNSS cannot have the effect of
diluting the requirement of Article 22(1). If held so, Section
47 will attract the vice of unconstitutionality. Section 47
lays down the requirement of communicating the full
particulars of the offence for which a person is arrested to
him.
(b) The ‘other grounds for such arrest’ referred to in Section
47(1) have nothing to do with the grounds of arrest
referred to in Article 22(1). Statutory restrictions do not
affect the power of the court to grant bail when the
violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is
established.
(c) Existence of power to arrest and justification for
exercise of such power are two different aspects.
(d) Obligation to inform grounds of arrest is not mere
procedural formality, it flows from personal liberty.
(e) In terms of Section 48 and 47 of BNSS the person
making arrest has to inform the arrestee of his right to
indicate his relative, friend or such other person for the
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 29purpose of giving information with regard to the arrest.
(f) Person effecting arrest is liable to forthwith inform of
such arrest thereafter with reasons and place where such
arrested person is being held. The police officer making
arrest shall make an entry as to who has been informed of
such arrest in a book to be kept in police station. This is in
addition to be made aware of grounds of arrest.
(g) Failure to supply the grounds in writing to the arrestee
prior to or immediately after arrest would not vitiate
arrest on grounds of noncompliance under Section 47 of
BNSS provided grounds can be supplied in writing within
reasonable time and in any case two hours prior to
production of arrestee in remand proceedings. {Vide:
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana [(2025) 5 SCC 799] and
Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another
(2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356).”
7. A counter affidavit has been filed by Sri.Sasidharan S.,
IPS, the Investigating Officer, negating the contentions raised in the
writ petition. Paragraph Nos.13 and 14 to 19, 22 and 25 of the
counter affidavit are required to be extracted. The same read as
under:
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 30
“13. In both the crime cases separate grounds
of arrest notices were prepared in English, the
language known to the petitioner and copies of
each were supplied to the petitioner and Mr.
Rajasekhar, staff of the petitioner who
accompanied the petitioner at that time and the
notices were acknowledged by them. The
contention of the petitioner that the grounds of
arrests in both the cases are practically verbatim
and cyclostyle is absolutely false.
14. The arrest intimation notices in both the
cases were given as per his request to Mr.
Rajasekhar, staff of the petitioner who
accompanied him and the same was received by
him. The arrest of the petitioner was informed to
Advocate Mr.Satheesh, over his mobile phone
number 9447139660 from my official mobile phone
number 9497996931 on 19.12.2025 as per the
choice of the petitioner. Later the advocate called
me back and enquired about the time of production
before the Hon’ble Enquiry Commissioner &
Special Judge Court, Kollam for which I replied
promptly. Actually the production of the accused
was about two hours late than the time I conveyed
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 31to the Advocate. Therefore the contention of the
petitioner is devoid of merit.
15. As the arrest procedures were completed,
the petitioner was produced before the Hon’ble
Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge
(Vigilance), Kollam on that day itself for not to
keep the arrested person unnecessarily and not to
cause trauma to him.
16. The petitioner was produced before the
Hon’ble Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge
(Vigilance), Kollam at about 10.00 PM and he was
remanded to judicial custody. The arrest
intimation was inforined well in advance to the
petitioner, his staff and his counsel and explained
to them in detail. The grounds of arrest also was
provided to him and to his staff as stipulated by
law. Therefore the allegation of the petitioner that
he had not got enough time is in fact incorrect. A
copy of the remand report for the petitioner / his
legal counsel was submitted along with the
original copy to the Hon’ble Court, but his counsel
was not present.
17. The email intimation of the grounds of
arrest was intimated to Mrs. Kala Bhandari, the
petitioner’s wife on 20.12.2025. The petitioner’s
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 32staff present at the Crime Branch office was given
proper intimation. His another staff, Balaji also
was given properly intimated. He was physically
present at the office of Crime Branch. Grounds of
arrest was given to the petitioner and Mr.
Rajasekhar, his staff on 19.12.2025. Therefore, his
right to get intimation of ground of arrest is no
way curtailed.
18. Though the remand report is prepared in
the regional language, the grounds of arrest was
given and explained to him in English, the
language known to the petitioner. The
Investigation Officer has communicated the details
of the case and the specific role of the petitioner
also. The petitioner’s counsel is well versed in
Malayalam language.
19. The grounds of arrests were given to the
staff of the petitioner and remand applications
were submitted before the Hon’ble Enquiry
Commissioner & Special Judge Court, Kollam and
all the procedures of arrest were complied while
making the arrest and production of the petitioner
before the Hon’ble Court which is established as
per the above facts. Therefore, his allegations are
totally denied.The fundamental rights of the
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 33petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 and 22 of
the Constitution of India is in no way denied.
22. With regard to Grounds A to O, the
allegation of the petitioner that his arrest is illegal
is not maintainable in law because all the
procedures of arrest have been complied with while
making the arrest of the petitioner and the written
communication of the grounds of arrests were
given to the petitioner and Mr. Rajasekhar, his
staff, well in advance as mandated by law and in
the language known to them on the same day ie,
19.12.2025, and about 5 hours before his
production before the Hon’ble Enquiry
Commissioner & Special Judge Court, Kollam. The
arrest of the petitioner was informed to Advocate
Mr.Satheesh, over his mobile phone number
9447139660 from my official mobile phone number
9497996931 on 19.12.2025 as per the choice of the
petitioner. Later the advocate called me back and
enquired about the time of production before the
Hon’ble Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge
Court, Kollam for which I replied promptly.
Actually the production of the accused was about
two hours late than the time I convened to the
Advocate. In addition to it, the grounds of arrests
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 34were also communicated through email to Mrs.
Kala Bhandari, his wife. Therefore, the right of the
petitioner is not curtailed and his contention is
devoid of merit.
25. With regard to Grounds Z to II it is
submitted that, the copy of the remand report for
the petitioner was submitted before the Hon’ble
Court at the time of production of the petitioner
before the Court. It is learned that though the
counsel of the petitioner was informed well in
advance, the counsel was not present at that time.
The arrest of the petitioner was informed to
Advocate Mr.Satheesh, over his mobile phone
number 9447139660 from my official mobile phone
number, 9497996931 on 19.12.2025 as per the
choice of the petitioner. Later the advocate called
me back and enquired about the time of production
before the Hon’ble Enquiry Commissioner &
Special Judge Court, Kollam for which I replied
promptly. Actually the production of the accused
was about two hours late, than the time I convened
to the Advocate. The grounds of arrests were given
to the petitioner in the language known to him and
handed over to him well in advance and explained
to him. His staff also was provided with the
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 35grounds of arrest. Therefore the submission of the
petitioner that his remand was illegal is not
maintainable.”
8. In this matter, a Special Investigation Team was
constituted by the Division Bench of this Court, and the
investigation would show that Dwarapalaka plates as well as on the
door frames of the Sabarimala Sreekovil, which had originally been
gold-cladded were taken away with a view to misappropriate the
gold therefrom. In both crimes, the prosecution alleges commission
of offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 409, 466, 467 and
120B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC‘
hereinafter) and under Section 13(1)(a) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (for short, ‘the PC
(Amendment) Act, 2018’ hereinafter) by the accused. The arrest of
the petitioner, who got arrayed as accused Nos.9 and 12 in Crime
Nos.3701/2025 and 3700/2025, respectively, is under challenge, for
the reasons extensively put forth in the notes of arguments filed by
the learned senior counsel for the petitioner.
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 36
9. Now, the question poses for consideration is whether the
arrest of the petitioner in Crime Nos.3700/2025 and 3701/2025 is
illegal, as argued by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner?
Otherwise, before arrest of the petitioner, the statutory
requirements to safeguard the constitutional mandate and the
directions issued by the Apex Court in this regard have been
complied or not?
10. In this connection, it is relevant to refer paragraph No.42
of the decision in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana reported
in [(2025) 5 Supreme Court Cases 799] which provides as
under:
“42. The purpose of inserting Section 50-ACrPC,
making it obligatory on the person making arrest to inform
about the arrest to the friends, relatives or persons
nominated by the arrested person, is to ensure that they
would be able to take immediate and prompt actions to
secure the release of the arrested person as permissible
under the law. The arrested person, because of his
detention, may not have immediate and easy access to the
legal process for securing his release, which would
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 37otherwise be available to the friends, relatives and such
nominated persons by way of engaging lawyers, briefing
them to secure release of the detained person on bail at the
earliest. Therefore, the purpose of communicating the
grounds of arrest to the detenue, and in addition to his
relatives as mentioned above is not merely a formality but
to enable the detained person to know the reasons for his
arrest but also to provide the necessary opportunity to him
through his relatives, friends or nominated persons to
secure his release at the earliest possible opportunity for
actualising the fundamental right to liberty and life as
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Hence, the
requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in
writing is not only to the arrested person, but also to the
friends, relatives or such other person as may be disclosed
or nominated by the arrested person, so as to make the
mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution meaningful and
effective failing which, such arrest may be rendered illegal.”
11. Similarly, paragraph No.40 of the decision in Mihir
Rajesh Shah reported in [2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356] also is
relevant and the same reads as under:
“40. The requirement of informing the arrested
person the grounds of arrest, in the light of and under
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 38Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, is not a mere
formality but a mandatory binding constitutional
safeguard which has been included in Part III of the
Constitution under the head of Fundamental Rights. Thus,
if a person is not informed of the grounds of his arrest as
soon as maybe, it would amount to the violation of his
fundamental rights thereby curtailing his right to life and
personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, rendering the arrest illegal.”
12. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner while
arguing non-compliance of the mandatory requirements, relied on
the above decisions as well as the decision in Prabir Purkayastha
v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in [(2024) 8 Supreme Court
Cases 254]. According to the learned senior counsel, the grounds
of arrest were not informed to the accused either in the notice, in
the intimation, or in the remand report. According to the learned
senior counsel, even though some reference could be seen in
paragraph No.14 of the remand report, the same is not exhaustive
and also the same is not in the local language of the petitioner, who
is a native of Chennai and he does not know Malayalam. It is also
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 39
submitted that, although the arrest was intimated to one
Rajasekharan S., he is neither a relative nor a friend of the accused
and, therefore, the mandatory requirement of serving an arrest
intimation/arrest notice to a person contemplated under law has
not been complied with.
13. The third contention raised by the learned senior counsel
for the petitioner, which surfaces for consideration in the light of the
aforesaid decisions, relates to the alleged non-compliance with the
mandatory requirement of furnishing clear, specific, and
meaningful grounds of arrest to the petitioner in a language known
to him, so as to enable him to effectively exercise his constitutional
and statutory rights, including the right to oppose the remand. In
this connection, it is relevant to note that in Prabir‘s case (supra),
the Apex Court held that though a contention was raised in the said
case by the learned ADGP that grounds of arrest were informed
through the arrest memo, that contention was not accepted by the
Apex Court and the Apex Court distinguished the “reasons for
arrest” and “grounds of arrest” after observing that there is a
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 40
significant difference in the above phrases and held that ‘the
“reasons for arrest” as indicated in the arrest memo are purely
formal parameters viz. to prevent the accused person from
committing any further offence; for proper investigation of the
offence; to prevent the accused person from causing the evidence
of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any
manner; to prevent the arrested person for making inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the
case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court
or to the investigating officer. These reasons would commonly
apply to any person arrested on charge of a crime, whereas the
“grounds of arrest” would be required to contain all such details in
hand of the investigating officer which necessitated the arrest of
the accused. Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest informed in
writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on
which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity
of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail.
Thus, the “grounds of arrest” would invariably be personal to the
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 41
accused and cannot be equated with the “reasons of arrest” which
are general in nature’. In Prabir‘s case (supra), since grounds of
arrest were not stated either in writing in the arrest memo and
though grounds of arrest were stated in the remand application, the
same failed to be provided to the accused or his counsel, the accused
was released and arrest of the accused was found illegal and
accordingly, he was released by the Apex Court.
14. Thus, the law regarding arrest of a person can be
summarised as under:
(1) If a person is arrested on a warrant, the grounds
for reasons for the arrest is the warrant itself; if the
warrant is read over to him, that is sufficient
compliance with the requirement that he should be
informed of the grounds for his arrest.
(2) If a person is arrested without a warrant, he must
be told why he has been arrested. If he is arrested for
committing an offence, he must be told that he has
committed a certain offence for which he would be
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 42placed on trial. In order to inform him that he has
committed a certain offence, he must be told of the
acts done by him which amounts to the offence. He
must be informed of the precise acts done by him for
which he would be tried; informing him merely of the
law applicable to such acts would not be enough.
(3) The purpose of inserting Section 50A of the CrPC,
making it obligatory on the person making arrest to
inform about the arrest to the friends, relatives or
persons nominated by the arrested person, is to ensure
that they would able to take immediate and prompt
actions to secure the release of the arrested person as
permissible under the law. The arrested person,
because of his detention, may not have immediate and
easy access to the legal process for securing his release,
which would otherwise be available to the friends,
relatives and such nominated persons by way of
engaging lawyers, briefing them to secure release of
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 43the detained person on bail at the earliest. Therefore,
the purpose of communicating the grounds of arrest to
the detenue, and in addition to his relatives as
mentioned above is not merely a formality but to
enable the detained person to know the reasons for his
arrest but also to provide the necessary opportunity to
him through his relatives, friends or nominated
persons to secure his release at the earliest possible
opportunity for actualising the fundamental right to
liberty and life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution. Hence, the requirement of
communicating the grounds of arrest in writing is not
only to the arrested person, but also to the friends,
relatives or such other person as may be disclosed or
nominated by the arrested person, so as to make the
mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution
meaningful and effective failing which, such arrest
may be rendered illegal.
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 44
(4) The requirement of informing the arrested person
the grounds of arrest, in the light of and under Article
22(1) of the Constitution of India, is not a mere
formality but a mandatory binding constitutional
safeguard which has been included in Part III of the
Constitution under the head of Fundamental Rights.
Thus, if a person is not informed of the grounds of his
arrest as soon as may be, it would amount to the
violation of his fundamental rights thereby curtailing
his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India, rendering the arrest illegal.
(5) There is a significant difference in the phrases
“reasons for arrest” and “grounds of arrest” and it can
be held that the “reasons for arrest” as indicated in the
arrest memo are purely formal parameters viz. to
prevent the accused person from committing any
further offence; for proper investigation of the offence;
to prevent the accused person from causing the
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 45
evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with
such evidence in any manner; to prevent the arrested
person for making inducement, threat or promise to
any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court
or to the investigating officer. These reasons would
commonly apply to any person arrested on charge of a
crime, whereas the “grounds of arrest” would be
required to contain all such details in hand of the
investigating officer which necessitated the arrest of
the accused. Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest
informed in writing must convey to the arrested
accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested
so as to provide him an opportunity of defending
himself against custodial remand and to seek bail.
Thus, the “grounds of arrest” would invariably be
personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the
“reasons of arrest” which are general in nature.
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 46
(6) Following the ratio of the decision in Manubhai
Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat reported in
[(2013) 1 SCC 314], it is obligatory on the part of the
Magistrate/the Judge concerned to satisfy himself
whether the materials placed before him justify the
remand.
(7) The arrested person must be well equipped with
the information not only about his arrest, but also the
reasons and grounds thereof, prior to his production
before the Magistrate, so as to enable him to effectively
defend himself and oppose police and judicial custody
and even press for bail.
15. In the instant case, the main contention raised by the
learned ADGP that Exts.P13 and P15, namely the notices to inform
the Arrestee the Grounds and Reasons for Arrest issued under
Sections 47 and 35(1)(b)(ii) of the BNSS, complies the statutory
mandate. In both crimes, the grounds of arrest were duly
communicated, and copies thereof were given to the accused as well
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 47
as to Sri.Rajasekharan S., S/o.Singara Babu, who accompanied the
accused.
16. In view of the arguments advanced, this Court finds it
appropriate to refer to the contents of Exts.P13 and P15, the notices
issued to inform the Arrestee the Grounds and Reasons for Arrest
under Sections 47 and 35(1)(b)(ii) of the BNSS, which read as
follows:
Ext.P13
“That you, Sri. Pankaj Bhandari. Accused No 12,
along with Sri Govardhan Roddom A 13, Sri
Unnikrishnan Potty A1 and other accused persons,
with malicious intention, hatched criminal conspiracy
to criminally misappropriate the gold cladded on the
copper plates of Dwarapalaka idol Plates (12 plates)
and pillar plates (two plates) installed in and around
the Sreekovil of the Sabarimala Temple. In
furtherance of common intention and conspiracy, A1
Unnikrishnan Potty submitted an application to the
Travancore Devaswom Board, offering to gold plate
the dwarapalaka idols plates and pillar plates of the
Sreekovil, which includes the above mentioned
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 48articles. On the basis of this application, and as part
of the conspiracy hatched, the articles (14 plates) were
allowed to be inappropriately handed over by the
accused Devaswom officials to A1, who took the
articles to Smart Creations Chennai, being owned by
you. There, the gold originally cladded on the plates
was stripped by you. Despite having clear knowledge
that the gold belongs to Travancore Devaswom
Board, you and other accused persons concealed the
fact and misappropriated the gold, thereby causing
unlawful pecuniary loss to Travancore Devaswom
Board and pecuniary advantage to you and other
accused. Since you have committed the offences in
Crime Branch Police Station Crime 3700/CB/CU-
IV/D/TVPM/2025 U/s 403,406,409,466,467,120.B
r/w 34 IPC and Sec 13(1) (a) r/w 13(2) of Prevention
of Corruption Act 1988 (Amendment Act 2018), your
arrest in this case is inevitable.”
Ext.P15
“That you, A.09 Sri.Pankaj Bhandari, along
with A.10 Sri Govardhan Roddom, A1 Sri
Unnikrishnan Potty and other accused persons, with
malicious intention, hatched criminal conspiracy to
criminally misappropriate the gold cladded on the
copper plates depicting the Dasavatharas, Rasi
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 49Symbols, top portion of the door frames, and
Prabhamandalam over the door frames (7 plates)
installed in and around the Sreekovil of the
Sabarimala Temple. In furtherance of common
intention and conspiracy, A1 Unnikrishnan Potty
submitted an application to the Travancore
Devaswam Board, offering to gold plate the door
frames of the door of the Sreekovil, which includes the
abovementioned articles. On the basis of this
application, and as part of the conspiracy hatched,
the articles (7 plates) were allowed to be
inappropriately handed over by the
accused Devaswam officials to A1, who took the
articles to Smart Creations Chennai, being owned by
you. There, the gold originally cladded on the plates
was stripped by you. Despite having clear knowledge
that the gold belongs to Travancore Devaswam
Board, you and other accused persons concealed the
fact and misappropriated the gold, thereby causing
unlawful pecuniary loss to Travancore Devaswam
Board and pecuniary advantage to you and other
accused. Since you have committed the offences in
Crime Branch Police Station Crime 3701/CB/CU-
IV/D/TVPM/2025 U/s 403, 406, 409, 466, 467, 120.B
r/w 34 IPC and Sec 13(1) (a) r/w 13(2) of Prevention
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 50of Corruption Act 1988 (Amendment Act 2018), your
arrest in this case is inevitable.”
17. The prime question to be considered is whether Exts.P13
and P15 contain valid “grounds of arrest” in terms of the law laid
down by the Apex Court in the various decisions discussed
hereinabove.
18. Here, if Exts.P13 and P15, as extracted hereinabove, are
treated as documents whereby grounds of arrest were informed to
the accused, it could be seen that the same were served upon the
accused and the signature acknowledging receipt of the same also
affixed in both documents. Apart from that, Sri.Rajasekharan S.,
S/o.Singara Babu also received copy of the above documents.
19. Before addressing as to whether Exts.P13 and P15, as
extracted above would be sufficient to hold that grounds of arrest
were informed to the petitioner in both crimes or at least two hours
prior to his production in remand proceedings, it is necessary to address
the contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner
that the grounds of arrest not only to be communicated to
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 51
the accused, but also to the friends, relatives or such other persons
of the accused, as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested
person for the purpose of giving such information, as provided under the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’ hereinafter)
and under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. In fact, every police
officer or other person making any arrest under the Cr.P.C. or BNSS shall
forthwith give information regarding such arrest and the place where the
arrested person is being held to any of his friends, relatives or such other
persons, as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person.
Section 48 of the BNSS is analogous to Section 50A of the Cr.P.C. Here,
evidently, Exts.P13 and P15 served upon Sri.Rajasekharan S., who
accompanied the petitioner to the Vigilance office on the date of arrest.
According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner,
Sri.Rajasekharan S. is neither nominated or appointed by the accused.
Further, he could not be treated as one of his friends in terms of Section
50A of the Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 48 of the BNSS. In this
regard, it is relevant to refer the address of the accused shown in this writ
petition itself. The same would show that the petitioner is a
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 52
native of Chennai and he came to the Vigilance office along with
Sri.Rajasekharan S. In such a case, the question that arises is how
far the contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner, that the said person is neither a friend nor a nominee nor
a person appointed by the accused, would sustain. In this
connection, it is relevant to note that, if there had been no close
relationship in the nature of friendship between the petitioner and
Sri.Rajasekharan S., the petitioner would not have brought
Sri.Rajasekharan S. with him all along the way from Chennai to
Kerala. If that be so, Sri. Rajasekharan S. could not be treated as a
stranger and would, at least, come within the purview of a friend of
the petitioner and therefore, regarding compliance of serving copies
of grounds of arrest to one of the friends of the accused in this case
could be seen from Exts.P13and P15 and non-compliance on this
count would not succeed.
20. Reverting back to the main challenge, it could be seen
that as observed by the Apex Court, there is subtle difference
between the phrases, viz., “reasons for arrest” and “grounds of
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 53
arrest”. The Apex Court held that the reasons regarding the
necessities of investigation would commonly apply to any person’s
arrest on charge of a crime. Thus, the grounds of arrest as espoused
by the Apex Court would be required to contain all such details in
hand of the Investigating Officer which necessitated the arrest of the
accused. That is to say, the grounds of arrest informed in writing
must be conveyed to the arrested accused, conveying all basic facts
on which he was being arrested, so as to provide him an opportunity
of defending himself against custodial remand and seeking bail, and
thus, grounds of arrest would invariably be personal to the accused
and cannot be equated with reasons for arrest, which are general in
nature.
21. Now, it is necessary to read Exts.P13 and P15, as
extracted above with a view to see commission of the alleged
offences by the accused as part of conspiracy hatched between the
10th accused, the 1st accused Sri.Unnikrishnan Potty, and the other
accused persons with malicious intention to criminally
misappropriate the gold cladded items on the Dwarapalaka plates as
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 54
well as on the door frames, could be gathered. It is also stated
therein that when the 1st accused Sri.Unnikrishnan Potty submitted
an application to the Travancore Devaswom Board with offer to gold
plate the Dwarapalaka plates and the door frames of Sabarimala
Sreekovil, the 1st accused took those items and produced the same
before the petitioner herein, who owns “Smart Creations”, Chennai.
Further, it is informed that the petitioner, having clear knowledge
that the gold belonged to the Travancore Devaswom Board,
concealed the said fact and misappropriated the gold and thereby
caused unlawful pecuniary loss to the Travancore Devaswom Board
and pecuniary advantage to the petitioner and the other accused
persons. Therefore, he committed the offences alleged which would
make his arrest inevitable. Thus, the specific allegations against the
accused in both crimes, which would necessitate the accused to
know the allegations against him so as to frame his defence, could
be found from Exts.P13 and P15, and the contra contention raised
by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is found to be not
acceptable.
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 55
22. It is true that, instead of serving the grounds of arrest
separately, when the remand report is prepared in a language
known to the accused and is served upon the accused before his
production before the court, and when the remand report contains
the grounds of arrest, the same would also amount to sufficient
compliance with the requirement of informing the grounds of
arrest. Here, the prosecution has no case that grounds of arrest not
informed by serving copy of remand application. In fact, the
remand application not served upon the accused, though the same
was produced before the court with copy for the learned senior
counsel for the petitioner. That apart, the remand report has been
prepared in local Malayalam language, which is not known to the
petitioner, who is a native of Chennai, as submitted by the learned
senior counsel for the petitioner. It is relevant to note further that
even though the prosecution has a case that the grounds of arrest
were informed to the accused and Sri.Rajasekharan S. in
compliance with Section 48 of the BNSS, the prosecution raised
another contention that on the second day, it was informed to the
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 56
wife of the accused by e-mail. Thus, the learned senior counsel
fervently submitted that if the prosecution’s stand is firm in the
matter of serving grounds of arrest to the accused and
Sri.Rajasekharan S. as his friend, there is no necessity of informing
the same to the wife of the accused through e-mail. In this
connection, it has to be observed that merely because an email
communication was given to the wife of the accused on the second
day, that by itself is not a reason to set at naught Exts.P13 and P15,
serving grounds of arrest to Sri.Rajasekharan S.
23. On reading Annexures P8 and P9, notices of arrest issued
under Section 94 of the BNSS and arrest notices were given properly
and therefore, the challenge against arrest notices found to be
unsustainable. Similarly, from Ext.P13 arrest memo in Crime
No.3700/2025 and Ext.P12 arrest memo in Crime No.3701/2025, it
could be seen that the arrest was intimated to the accused, and
Sri.Rajashekaran S. and Sri.M.Balaji were shown as witnesses.
Therefore, this contention also found to be unsustainable. In reply
to the grievance raised by the learned senior counsel for the
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 57
petitioner that the remand report was not served, the learned ADGP
submitted that the remand report was received by the learned
senior counsel on the next day.
24. In the notes of arguments filed by the petitioner, non-
supply of the remand application to the petitioner and the remand
report containing altogether different grounds for the petitioner’s
arrest is also stated as a reason to declare the arrest as illegal. In this
connection, as already discussed in this case, the remand
application was not served on the accused and a copy of the same
was produced before the court to be given to the counsel for the
accused. Anyhow, the same was taken by the counsel on the next
day. Here, it is already found that the grounds of arrest were
communicated in the language (English) known to the accused, as
per Exts.P13 and P15. Therefore, non-supply of the remand report
again to inform the grounds of arrest to the accused is not necessary
and, in such view of the matter, this challenge is found to be
unsustainable.
25. According to the learned senior counsel for the
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 58
petitioner, the accused was denied legal consultation and
representation during arrest and remand proceedings in terms of
paragraph Nos.35 and 36 of Mihir Rajesh Shah’s case (supra). In
this connection, the specific case of the prosecution is that the arrest
of the accused was informed to Adv.Satheesh from the mobile
phone of the arresting officer viz., 9447139660 to the mobile phone
number viz., 9497996931 to the mobile phone number of
Adv.Satheesh on 19.12.2025 as per the choice of the accused. The
prosecution has a further case that, thereafter, the advocate called
the arresting officer and enquired about the time of production of
the accused before the court, and the same was also informed. At
the same time, the prosecution would concede that the accused was
produced after two hours late than the time informed to the
advocate. Anyhow, at the time when the accused was produced
before the court at 10.00 p.m., no advocate was present to represent
the accused. In the instant case, the accused was arrested in Crime
No.3701/2025 at 4.35 p.m. and in Crime No.3700/2025 at 4.50
p.m. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 59
accused/petitioner is that legal consultation and representation
during arrest and remand proceedings were denied, in Mihir
Rajesh Shah’s case (supra), in paragraph 35, the Apex Court
discussed about the pre-litigation assistance in terms of the decision
in Suhas Chakma v. Union of India reported in [(2024) SCC
OnLine SC 3031] on par with the “Guidelines on Early Access to
Justice at Pre-arrest, Arrest and Remand Stage Framework” as
framed by the National Legal Services Authority and it was held that
the guidelines provide for legal assistance to the arrested person at
the stage before remand. The remand advocate shall interact with
the arrestee with the objective to inform him about the allegations
against him and the grounds being put by the prosecution for
seeking remand. The guidelines also provide for making available
the translated copy of documents to the arrested person in the
language he/she understands. The purpose of securing legal
assistance before remand is not merely symbolic, but it is to ensure
that the accused is afforded an effective opportunity to oppose the
prayer for police custody and to place before the magistrate any
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 60
circumstances that may warrant refusal or limitation of such
custody. If the accused is not represented through a Counsel,
he/she should be made aware that he/she is entitled for legal aid.
As far as possible, it shall be ensured that every accused person is
represented by an advocate, if he is not able to avail such
assistance, he should be given free legal aid. A three-judge Bench
of this Court in Ashok v. State of Uttar Pradesh held that an
accused who is not represented by an advocate is entitled for free
legal aid at all material stages starting from remand. In paragraph
No.37, the Apex Court held that the intent behind the provision
(Section 57 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 58 of the BNSS) mandating
the production of accused before the Magistrate for exercise of the
power of remand under this section is with the dual purpose. First,
ensuring physical presence of the accused and second to afford him
an opportunity to be heard. In paragraph 37, it has been observed
further that the intent of this provision is not merely to be heard at
the stage of remand but to be represented by the counsel of his choice.
26. In the instant case, the telephonic information given by
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 61
the arresting officer to Adv.Satheesh to his mobile phone from the
mobile phone of the Investigating Officer is not disputed by the
accused. But whether an opportunity was given to the accused to
speak with the advocate of his choice could not be decipherable
from the materials available. That apart, the accused was produced
before the court two hours later than the time informed to the
advocate for the accused.
27. It is not in dispute that in the absence of a counsel for an
accused to submit the versions of the accused at the time when his
remand was considered, it is necessary for the prosecution to
provide a legal aid lawyer. But this mandate has no application in the
present case, since the counsel at the choice of the accused was informed
regarding arrest and production of the accused before the court.
28. When an accused was arrested after providing reasons for
arrest and grounds for arrest, when the arrest was informed to the
counsel opted by the accused, there is no necessity to provide a legal aid
counsel. In the instant case, the only anomaly that could be seen from
the proceedings adopted by the arresting officer is that
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 62
he failed to produce the accused before the Special Court and the
production was delayed for about two hours, obviously for the time
taken for medical examination and travelling from
Thiruvananthapuram to Kollam (71 km). Now, the question is
whether the same itself is a ground to declare the arrest, when all
other formalities were complied with, as discussed. I do not think
that the same by itself is a reason to declare the arrest as illegal.
Therefore, for the said reason also, the prayer in the petition to
declare the arrest as illegal cannot be illegal.
Thus, in the instant case, the non-compliance argued by the
learned senior counsel for the petitioner is not found sufficient to
declare the arrest as illegal, and in consequence thereof, this
petition would necessarily fail.
In the result, this Writ Petition (Criminal) is dismissed.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
Bb
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 63
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 52 OF 2026
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF FIR NO.3700/2025 DATED
11.10.2025 OF CRIME BRANCH,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF FIR NO.3701/2025 DATED
11.10.2025 CRIME BRANCH,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S TRAVEL
DOCUMENTS CONFIRMING HIS TRAVEL AND
STATEMENT BEFORE THE SIT DATED 09.10.2025
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPIES OF THE PETITIONER STATEMENT
AND THE INVENTORY DOCUMENT PREPARED BY THE
SIT DATED 14.10.2025
Exhibit P5 A COPY OF THE PETITIONER’S TRAVEL
DOCUMENTS DATED 20.10.2025.
Exhibit P6 A COPY OF THE PETITIONER’S TRAVEL
DOCUMENTS DATED 29.10.2025
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
SIT DATED 25.11.2025
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE SIT’S NOTICE DATED
27.11.2025
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE SIT’S NOTICE DATED
01.12.2025
Exhibit P10 A COPY OF THE PETITIONER’S TRAVEL
DOCUMENTS DATED 15.12.2025
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER’S TRAVEL
DOCUMENTS DATED 19.12.2025
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST MEMO IN FIR
3701/2025 DATED 19.12.2025
Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST MEMO IN FIR
3700/2025 DATED 19.12.2025
Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE GROUND OF ARREST IN FIR
3700/2025 DATED 19.12.2025
Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE GROUND OF ARREST IN FIR
3701/2025 DATED 19.12.2025
Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE SIT’S EMAIL DATED
20.12.2025
W.P.(CRL.)NO.52 OF 2026 64
Exhibit P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT IN FIR
NO.3700/2025 DATED 19.12.2025
Exhibit P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT IN FIR
NO.3701/2025 DATED 19.12.2025
Exhibit P19 THE TRUE COPY THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE
STATE POLICE CHIEF, KERALA, BEARING
NO.12/2025/PHQ DATED 25.04.2025
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS : NIL