Kerala High Court
Riswan U vs State Of Kerala on 7 April, 2026
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
2026:KER:31190
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. 1869 OF 2026
CRIME NO.446/2025 OF CHERPULASSERY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.03.2026 IN BAIL APPL.
NO.12985 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED (A3):
RISWAN U
AGED 19 YEARS
S/O USMAN KUNJU, NOOFINA MANZIL, THULAMPARAMBU SOUTH,
HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690514
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR
SHRI.MOHANAN M.K.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
SMT.SREEJA V., SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.04.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. No.1869 of 2026
-2-
2026:KER:31190
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.3 in Crime
No.446/2025 of Cherpulassery Police Station, Palakkad District.
The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C),
25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 26.05.2025
at about 2.15 p.m., near Nellaya at Krishnappadl, the accused
Nos.1 and 2 were found transporting 87.725 Kgs of Ganja in 42
packets in a Wagon-R car bearing Registration No.KL-53T-6753
for the purpose of sale without any valid documents. They were
arrested on the spot and the contraband articles and the vehicle
were seized as per seizure mahazar. On investigation, it is
revealed that accused Nos.3 to 8 have acted as accomplices in
the transportation of ganja and thereby committed the
offences.
4. I have heard Sri.K.V.Anil Kumar, the learned counsel
for the applicant and Smt. Sreeja V., the learned Senior Public
B.A. No.1869 of 2026
-3-
2026:KER:31190
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 27.05.2025 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.1869 of 2026
-4-
2026:KER:31190
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
Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and
Others [(2024) 7 SCC 576], while dealing with Section 19 of
B.A. No.1869 of 2026
-5-
2026:KER:31190
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 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
B.A. No.1869 of 2026
-6-
2026:KER:31190
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 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
B.A. No.1869 of 2026
-7-
2026:KER:31190
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 SC 2356), the
B.A. No.1869 of 2026
-8-
2026:KER:31190
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
B.A. No.1869 of 2026
-9-
2026:KER:31190
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 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.
B.A. No.1869 of 2026
– 10 –
2026:KER:31190
(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.
I went through the case diary. It shows that the grounds
of arrest were intimated to the applicant and his relatives and
all formalities in accordance with Chapter V of BNSS have been
complied with. The notice served on the applicant under
Section 47 of BNSS shows that at the time of his arrest, the
specific grounds and reasons for arrest were communicated to
him. The notice served on the relative under Section 48 of
BNSS also shows that the grounds of arrest were duly
communicated. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be
released on bail. The bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
SKP
B.A. No.1869 of 2026
– 11 –
2026:KER:31190
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 1869 OF 2026
PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES:
Annexure-A A TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 446/2025 OF
CHERPULASSERY POLICE STATION DATED
27.05.2025
Annexure-B A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2025
IN CRL.M.C. NO. 3466/ 2025 OF THE SESSIONS
COURT, PALAKKAD
Annexure-C A TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST MEMO DATED
27.05.2025IN CRIME NO. 446/2025 OF THE
PETITIONER IN CHERPULASSERY POLICE STATION
Annexure-D A TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST INTIMATION DATED
27.05.2025 IN CRIME NO. 446/2025 OF THE
PETITIONER IN CHERPULASSERY POLICE STATIONRESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES: NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE
