Kerala High Court
Shahul Hameed A.T vs State Of Kerala on 17 July, 2026
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
CNR : KLHC010465392026
2026:KER:53161
BAIL APPL. NO. 3478 OF 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2026 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1948
BAIL APPL. NO. 3478 OF 2026
CRIME NO.281/2026 OF Chevayur Police Station, Kozhikode
PETITIONER(S)/ ACCUSED NO.2:
SHAHUL HAMEED A.T
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O. ABDULLA, DIYA MIRSHA, KALLAYI POST, PAYYANAKKAL,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673003
BY ADVS.
SRI.SAM ISAAC POTHIYIL
SMT.S.SURAJA
SHRI.MUHAMMED SUHAIR C.A
SMT.SINDURA SREENIVASAN
SMT.BINEETHA THOMAS
SMT.CHANCHAL SERAPHINE
RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CHEVAYUR POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN -
673012
SMT.ANEEDA BEEGUM, SR. PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.07.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CNR : KLHC010465392026
2026:KER:53161
BAIL APPL. NO. 3478 OF 2026
2
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.2 in Crime No.281/2026 of
Chevayoor Police Station, Kozhikode District. The offence alleged is
punishable under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for short, NDPS Act).
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 21.04.2026 at
about 22:30 hours, the applicant and the other accused in the crime
were found in possession of 108.28 grams of MDMA at Tokyo Lodge,
Kozhikode and thereby committed the above offence.
4. I have heard Sri.Sam Isaac Pothiyil, 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 Senior Public Prosecutor
CNR : KLHC010465392026
2026:KER:53161
BAIL APPL. NO. 3478 OF 2026
3
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 21.04.2026 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
CNR : KLHC010465392026
2026:KER:53161
BAIL APPL. NO. 3478 OF 2026
4
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 copy of such written grounds of arrest has to be furnished to the
CNR : KLHC010465392026
2026:KER:53161
BAIL APPL. NO. 3478 OF 2026
5
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 Andhra
CNR : KLHC010465392026
2026:KER:53161
BAIL APPL. NO. 3478 OF 2026
6
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 accused 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
CNR : KLHC010465392026
2026:KER:53161
BAIL APPL. NO. 3478 OF 2026
7
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.
CNR : KLHC010465392026
2026:KER:53161
BAIL APPL. NO. 3478 OF 2026
8
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
CNR : KLHC0104653920262026:KER:53161
BAIL APPL. NO. 3478 OF 20269
cannot validate unconstitutional arrest.
14. I went through the case diary. On a perusal of the case
diary, it is noticed that the separate grounds of arrest were
communicated to the applicant as well as his relatives. However, 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 a small,
intermediate, or commercial quantity. Hence, I hold that the requirement
of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Sections 47 and 48 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.
CNR : KLHC010465392026
2026:KER:53161
BAIL APPL. NO. 3478 OF 2026
10
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
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
SJ
CNR : KLHC010465392026
2026:KER:53161
BAIL APPL. NO. 3478 OF 2026
11
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 3478 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.06.2026
PASSED BY THE HON’BLE SPECIAL COURT FOR NDPS
ACT CASES VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT IN
CRL.M.P NO. 03/2026
