Kerala High Court
Anu Raveendran vs State Of Kerala on 24 July, 2026
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
CNR : KLHC010529062026
2026:KER:55890
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2026 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1948
BAIL APPL. NO. 3930 OF 2026
CRIME NO.371/2026 OF VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.06.2026 IN CMP 15/2026 IN SC
NO.1006 OF 2026 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS
COURT - IV / I ADDITIONAL MACT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE
AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5:
ANU RAVEENDRAN
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O. RAVEENDRAN, CHARUVILA VEEDU, VELLAR, KOVALAM
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695527.
BY ADV SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
SMT.ANEEDA BEEGUM, SR. PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.07.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CNR : KLHC010529062026
B.A. No.3930 of 2026 -2-
2026:KER:55890
ORDER
This application is filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS),
seeking regular bail.
2. The applicant is the accused No.5 in Crime
No.371/2026 of Vizhinjam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram
District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 20(b)
(ii)(C) and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the
accused Nos. 1 to 5 hatched up a conspiracy to procure Ganja for
illicit sale and in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy they
procured Ganja from Tamil Nadu. On 24/02/2026 at about 21:25
hours, the accused Nos.1 to 3 were found possessing and carrying
Ganja to the tune of 21.013 Kg in a Maruti Wagonr car bearing
registration No. KL 01 C R 8344 from Tamil Nadu to Venganoor.
The police party intercepted the vehicle and recovered the
contraband and arrested the accused on complying with the
statutory formalities. The accused Nos.4 and 5 provided escort for
the above car so as to give information as to inspection of vehicle
CNR : KLHC010529062026
B.A. No.3930 of 2026 -3-
2026:KER:55890
if any on the way by the police or any other authorities by
traveling in a motorcycle. The accused Nos. 4 and 5 had
knowledge of the fact the accused Nos. 1 to 3 have procured the
contraband Ganja from Valliyoor at Tamil Nadu and they are
transporting Ganja in the above said motor car and thereby
committed the offences.
4. I have heard Sri.Shajin S. Hameed, the learned
counsel for the applicant and Smt.Aneeda Beegum, 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
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.
CNR : KLHC010529062026
B.A. No.3930 of 2026 -4-
2026:KER:55890
6. The applicant was arrested on 25.03.2026 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 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.
CNR : KLHC010529062026
B.A. No.3930 of 2026 -5-
2026:KER:55890
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 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
CNR : KLHC010529062026
B.A. No.3930 of 2026 -6-
2026:KER:55890
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
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
CNR : KLHC010529062026
B.A. No.3930 of 2026 -7-
2026:KER:55890
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 Mihir Rajesh
Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2025 SCC OnLine
CNR : KLHC010529062026
B.A. No.3930 of 2026 -8-
2026:KER:55890
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
CNR : KLHC010529062026
B.A. No.3930 of 2026 -9-
2026:KER:55890
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 communicate the grounds of arrest in writing soon after arrest,
it be so done orally. The said grounds be communicated in writing
within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior
to the production of the arrestee for the remand proceedings
before the Magistrate.
(iv) In NDPS cases, specification of quantity of the
contraband seized is mandatory for effective communication of
grounds of arrest.
(v) In case of non compliance of the above, the
arrest and the subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and
the arrestee should be set free forthwith.
(vi) The burden is on the police to establish the
proper communication of grounds of arrest.
CNR : KLHC010529062026
B.A. No.3930 of 2026 -10-
2026:KER:55890
(vii) The filing of charge sheet and cognizance of the
order cannot validate unconstitutional arrest.
14. I went through the notice issued to the applicant
under Section 47 of the BNSS. It only says that, in the
investigation conducted, it was revealed that he is also involved in
the crime and, accordingly, he was arrested. Admittedly, the
contraband was seized from the accused Nos. 1 to 3, who were
travelling in a car. According to the prosecution version, the
applicant and the accused No. 4, along with the accused Nos. 1 to
3, conspired together and brought the contraband from Tamil
Nadu. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 were carrying the contraband in their
car, and the applicant and the accused No.4 were escorting them
on a bike. However, these facts were not stated at all in the
Section 47 notice. In short, the specific reasons and grounds of
arrest were not mentioned in the Section 47 notice. The Supreme
Court, in Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra), has held that, even
though it is not necessary for the authorities to furnish full details
of the offence in the communication regarding grounds for arrest,
the information should be sufficient to enable the arrested person
to understand why he has been arrested. It was further held that
the grounds communicated to the arrested person should be
somewhat similar to the charge framed by the court for the trial of
CNR : KLHC010529062026
B.A. No.3930 of 2026 -11-
2026:KER:55890
the case. This court in Imran @ Hamsath Ikthiyar @ Irshad v.
State of Kerala [2026 (2) KHC 282[, has stated that, in crimes
under the NDPS Act, so far as the accused from whom no
contraband was seized but who is otherwise involved in the crime
is concerned, it is sufficient if his role in the crime and the grounds
for his arrest are communicated to him. Since Section 47 notice
issued to the applicant does not contain reasons and grounds of
arrest, the applicant 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.
CNR : KLHC010529062026
B.A. No.3930 of 2026 -12-
2026:KER:55890
(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
mea
CNR : KLHC010529062026
B.A. No.3930 of 2026 -13-
2026:KER:55890
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 3930 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-A TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.371/2026 OF
VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION.
Annexure-B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3/7/2026 IN
CMP.NO.15/2026 IN S.C.NO.1006/2026
BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-IV,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
