Kerala High Court
Jibin George vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 2026
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
2026:KER:30164
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1948
BAIL APPL. NO. 1481 OF 2026
CRIME NO.170/2025 OF ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN SC NO.503 OF 2025 OF DISTRICT
COURT & SESSIONS COURT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED:
JIBIN GEORGE,
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O GEORGE, AANIKKAL KOKKAD HOUSE, MAMMOOD,
PERUMBAYIKKATTUSERY KARAYIL P.O, PERUMBAYIKODE,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 688528
BY ADV SHRI.ANEESH K.R
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.K.SURESH, SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.04.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. No.1481 of 2026
-2-
2026:KER:30164
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.170/2025 of Ettumanoor Police Station, Kottayam District.
The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 296(b),
351(1), 126(2), 115(2), 121(2) and 103(1) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNS).
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the accused
No.2 and the de facto complainant were conducting pan shops
nearby the Excalibur bar, situated adjacent to the M.C. Road at
Thellakom. Due to his enmity towards the de facto complainant,
the accused No.2 instigated the applicant, who has criminal
antecedents, to assault and abuse the de facto complainant, in
furtherance of the said abetment and instigation, on
02.02.2025 at about 11.30 p.m., the applicant went to the pan
shop conducted by the de facto complainant, abused her with
obscene words and criminally intimidated her by exhorting to
set ablaze her pan shop and only the pan shop of the accused
B.A. No.1481 of 2026
-3-
2026:KER:30164
No.2 need be conducted there; then the applicant kicked the de
facto complainant and caused her to fall down and when her
relative Bineesh intervened, he assaulted him also. At that time
Syam Prasad, a Civil Police Officer, attached to Kottayam West
Police Station came there while he was returning after his duty;
then the de facto complainant requested him to intervene and
call the police; then Syam Prasad, a Civil Police Officer, who is
duty-bound to prevent cognizable offences alighted from his
motorbike and approached the scene of occurrence and
recorded the video of the incident on his mobile phone, which
enraged the applicant, who also felt that Syam Prasad was
supporting the de facto complainant. Due to the said enmity,
the applicant with intent to cause the death of Syam Prasad,
exhorted him to call the police and punched him on the left side
of his neck and pushed him down to the ground; while Syam
Prasad was lying in the supine position on the ground, the
applicant, with intent to cause death, hit on his chest with his
right knee; when he was obstructed by the second witness, he
assaulted him also; then with knowledge that it may cause
death, the applicant kicked on the chest of Syam Prasad
B.A. No.1481 of 2026
-4-
2026:KER:30164
forcibly, causing fracture of ribs. Syam Prasad sustained fatal
injuries and succumbed to the same, while being treated at the
Caritas Hospital and thereby committed the offences.
4. I have heard Sri.Aneesh K.R., the learned counsel for
the applicant and Sri.C.K.Suresh, the learned Special Public
Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant
submitted that the requirement of informing the arrested
person of the grounds of arrest is mandatory under Article
22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the BNSS
and inasmuch as the applicant was not furnished with the
grounds of arrest, his arrest was illegal and is liable to be
released on bail. On the other hand, the learned Senior Public
Prosecutor submitted that all legal formalities were complied
with in accordance with Chapter V of the 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 02.02.2025 and since
B.A. No.1481 of 2026
-5-
2026:KER:30164
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
B.A. No.1481 of 2026
-6-
2026:KER:30164
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 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
B.A. No.1481 of 2026
-7-
2026:KER:30164
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.
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
B.A. No.1481 of 2026
-8-
2026:KER:30164
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 acused person is
arrested on 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
B.A. No.1481 of 2026
-9-
2026:KER:30164
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 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.
B.A. No.1481 of 2026
– 10 –
2026:KER:30164
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.
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.
B.A. No.1481 of 2026
– 11 –
2026:KER:30164
(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.
(vii) The filing of charge sheet and cognizance of the
order cannot validate unconstitutional arrest.
14. I went through the case diary. On perusal of the case
diary it is noticed that grounds of arrest were not
communicated to the applicant or to his relatives in terms of
Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS and the dictum laid down in the
B.A. No.1481 of 2026
– 12 –
2026:KER:30164
afore mentioned decisions. Hence, I hold that the requirement
of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 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
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
B.A. No.1481 of 2026
– 13 –
2026:KER:30164
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
SKP
B.A. No.1481 of 2026
– 14 –
2026:KER:30164
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 1481 OF 2026
PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES:
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.05.2025
IN CRL MC NO 856/2025 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL
SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM
Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2025
IN CRL MC NO 1492/2025 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL
SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAMRESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES: NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE