Kerala High Court
Vignesh V.S vs State Of Kerala on 7 April, 2026
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
B.A.No.1866/2026
1
2026:KER:30613
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1948
BAIL APPL. NO. 1866 OF 2026
CRIME NO.91/2025 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2026 IN CMP NO.2 OF
2026 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-1,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
VIGNESH V.S , AGED 22 YEARS
S/O K. VINOD, ANATHANAM, KANDACHUVILAKATHU
VEEDU, T.C NO. 21/1125(1), NEDUNKADU DESOM,
MANACAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695009
BY ADVS. SHRI.ARUN V.G. (K/795/2004)
SHRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN (KAMBISSERIL)
SRI.NEERAJ NARAYAN
SMT.SREELAKSHMI J PILLAI
RESPONDENT/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE EXCISE INSPECTOR
THIRUVANATHAPURAM EXCISE RANGE ,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
SRI.K.A. NOUSHAD, SR. PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.04.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.1866/2026
2
2026:KER:30613
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 in Crime
No.91/2025 of Excise Range Office, Thiruvananthapuram, The
offences alleged are punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(A),
22(b), 22(c) and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the NDPS Act)
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on
24.12.2025 at about 4.20 am, the applicant was found in
possession of 200 grams of ganja, 1.719 grams of MDMA and
0.402 grams of LSD for the purpose of sale near
Maruthoorkadavu bridge, Nemom Village in contravention of the
NDPS Act and thereby committed the offences.
4. I have heard Sri. Arun V.G., the learned counsel
for the applicant and Sri. K.A. Noushad, the learned Senior 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
B.A.No.1866/2026
3
2026:KER:30613
the applicant was not furnished with the grounds of arrest, his
arrest was illegal and is liable to be released on bail. On the
other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that all legal
formalities were complied with in accordance with Chapter V of
the BNSS at the time of the arrest of the applicant. It is further
submitted that the alleged incident occurred as part of the
intentional criminal acts of the applicant and hence he is not
entitled to bail at this stage.
6. The applicant was arrested on 24.12.2025 and
since then he is in judicial custody.
7. Though prima facie there are materials on
record to connect the applicant with the crime, since the
applicant has raised a question of absence of communication of
the grounds of his arrest, let me consider the same.
8. Chapter V of BNSS, 2023 deals with the arrest
of persons. Sub-section (1) of Section 35 of BNSS lists cases
when police may arrest a person without a warrant. Section 47
of BNSS clearly states that every police officer or other person
arresting any person without a warrant shall forthwith
communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is
arrested or other grounds for such arrest. Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India provides that no person who is arrested
shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as
may be, of the grounds for such arrest. Thus, the requirement of
B.A.No.1866/2026
4
2026:KER:30613
informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a
formality but a mandatory statutory and constitutional
requirement. Noncompliance with Article 22(1) of the
Constitution will be a violation of the fundamental right of the
accused guaranteed by the said Article. It will also amount to a
violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21
of the Constitution.
9. The question whether failure to communicate
written grounds of arrest would render the arrest illegal,
necessitating the release of the accused, is no longer res integra.
The Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and
Others [(2024) 7 SCC 576], while dealing with Section 19 of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, has held that no
person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without
being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such
arrest. It was further held that a copy of written grounds of arrest
should be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course
and without exception. In Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT
of Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC 254], while dealing with the offences
under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act,1967 (for short,
‘UAPA’), it was held that any person arrested for an allegation of
commission of offences under the provisions of UAPA or for that
matter any other offence(s) has a fundamental and a statutory
right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a
B.A.No.1866/2026
5
2026:KER:30613
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.
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
B.A.No.1866/2026
6
2026:KER:30613
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 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
B.A.No.1866/2026
7
2026:KER:30613
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.
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.
B.A.No.1866/2026
8
2026:KER:30613
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.
(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
B.A.No.1866/2026
9
2026:KER:30613
the case diary it is noticed that separate grounds for arrest were
communicated to the applicant. However, except mentioning
that the arrest is for the illegal possession of contraband article,
there is no reference to the quantity of contraband seized from
the applicant. The quantity of contraband is necessary to be
mentioned since it enables the applicant to identify whether he is
involved in a bailable or non bailable offence or whether the
quantity involved is small, intermediate or commercial quantity
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.
B.A.No.1866/202610
2026:KER:30613
(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.
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
kp
B.A.No.1866/2026
11
2026:KER:30613
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 1866 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
24.12.2025 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM
Annexure A2 THE FREE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
09.03.2026 IN C.M.P 2 OF 2026 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE -I ,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
24.12.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE EXCISE RAGE
OFFICER BEFORE THE JFCM-I,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE CRIME AND OCCURRENCE
REPORT DATED 24.12.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE
EXCISE RAGE OFFICER BEFORE THE JFCM-I,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM
