Kerala High Court
Pramod vs State Of Kerala on 10 April, 2026
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
B.A.No. 2004 of 2026
..1..
2026:KER:32238
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1948
BAIL APPL. NO. 2004 OF 2026
CRIME NO.66/2025 OF MALA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2026 IN CRL.MP 1/2026 IN SC
NO.1220 OF 2025 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, IRINJALAKUDA
PETITIONER:
PRAMOD
AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. BABU,
VADASSERY HOUSE,
KURUVILASSERY DESOM & VILLAGE,
CHALAKUDY TALUK,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680307
BY ADVS.
SRI.JITHIN BABU A
SHRI.ARUN SAMUEL
SHRI.ANOOD JALAL K.J.
SMT.DONA MATHEW
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
SRI.C.K.SURESH, SPL. PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.04.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No. 2004 of 2026
..2..
2026:KER:32238
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 sole accused in Crime
No.66/2025 of Mala Police Station, Thrissur District. The offences
alleged are punishable under Sections 329(3) and 103(1) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 13.01.2025
at 4:20 p.m., the applicant due to previous enmity and with an
intention to commit murder, hacked on the forehead and head
of Thomas with a sword and when the deceased fell on the
ground, the applicant again hacked the deceased with sword
and also hit on the hands, legs and other parts of the body of
the deceased with wooden pieces and concrete pieces which
were lying at the place of incident and committed murder.
4. I have heard Sri.A.Jithin Babu, the learned counsel for
the applicant and Sri.C.K.Suresh, the learned Special Public
Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.
B.A.No. 2004 of 2026
..3..
2026:KER:32238
5. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant
submitted that the requirement of informing the arrested person
of the grounds of arrest is mandatory under Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India and Section 47 of the BNSS and inasmuch
as the applicant was not furnished with the grounds of arrest,
his arrest was illegal and is liable to be released on bail. On the
other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that all
legal formalities were complied with in accordance with Chapter
V of the BNSS at the time of the arrest of the applicant. It is
further submitted that the alleged incident occurred as part of
the intentional criminal acts of the applicant and hence he is not
entitled to bail at this stage.
6. The applicant was arrested on 16.01.2025 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
B.A.No. 2004 of 2026
..4..
2026:KER:32238
persons. Sub-section (1) of Section 35 of BNSS lists cases when
police may arrest a person without a warrant. Section 47 of
BNSS clearly states that every police officer or other person
arresting any person without a warrant shall forthwith
communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he
is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India provides that no person who is arrested
shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as
may be, of the grounds for such arrest. Thus, the requirement of
informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a
formality but a mandatory statutory and constitutional
requirement. Noncompliance with Article 22(1) of the
Constitution will be a violation of the fundamental right of the
accused guaranteed by the said Article. It will also amount to a
violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21
of the Constitution.
9. The question whether failure to communicate written
grounds of arrest would render the arrest illegal, necessitating
the release of the accused, is no longer res integra. The
B.A.No. 2004 of 2026
..5..
2026:KER:32238
Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and
Others [(2024) 7 SCC 576], while dealing with Section 19 of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, has held that no
person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without
being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such
arrest. It was further held that a copy of written grounds of
arrest should be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of
course and without exception. In Prabir Purkayastha v.
State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC 254], while dealing with
the offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act,1967
(for short, ‘UAPA’), it was held that any person arrested for an
allegation of commission of offences under the provisions of
UAPA or for that matter any other offence(s) has a fundamental
and a statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest
in writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest has to be
furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and
without exception at the earliest. It was observed that the right
to be informed about the grounds of arrest flows from Article
22(1) of the Constitution of India, and any infringement of this
B.A.No. 2004 of 2026
..6..
2026:KER:32238
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
B.A.No. 2004 of 2026
..7..
2026:KER:32238
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 results in
demonstrable prejudice or denial of an opportunity to defend.
However, in Ahmed Mansoor v. State (2025 SCC OnLine SC
B.A.No. 2004 of 2026
..8..
2026:KER:32238
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.
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
B.A.No. 2004 of 2026
..9..
2026:KER:32238
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.
(iii) In cases where the arresting officer/person is unable to
B.A.No. 2004 of 2026
..10..
2026:KER:32238
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 for arrest were not
communicated to the applicant or to his relatives in terms of
Sections 47 and 48 of BNSS and the dictum laid down in the
B.A.No. 2004 of 2026
..11..
2026:KER:32238
aforementioned 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.
B.A.No. 2004 of 2026
..12..
2026:KER:32238
(v) The applicant shall not attempt to contact any of the
prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or
in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence
any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.
(vi) The applicant shall not leave the State of Kerala
without the permission of the trial Court.
(vii) The application, if any, for deletion/modification of the
bail conditions or cancellation of bail on the grounds of violating
the bail conditions shall be filed at the jurisdictional court.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH,
JUDGE
APA
B.A.No. 2004 of 2026
..13..
2026:KER:32238
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 2004 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 66/2025 OF
MALA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
ANNEXURE 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/02/2026 IN
CRL. M.P. NO. 1/2026 BY I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA.
ANNEXURE 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY
THE INVESTIGATION OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH
CRIME NO. 66/2025 OF MALA POLICE STATION,
THRISSUR
