Kerala HC Grants Bail To Accused In Alleged False NDPS Case Against Beautician | Arrest Vitiated For Not Communicating Grounds
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas has allowed a bail application and directed the release of the petitioner from custody. The Court held that the petitioner’s arrest was vitiated due to the absence of communication of the grounds for arrest, thereby entitling him to bail. The Court directed that the petitioner be released upon the execution of a bond and the fulfilment of specified conditions. The decision came after the Court examined the arrest records and found no specific reference to the grounds for arrest communicated to the petitioner at the time of arrest.
The bail application was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner was the first accused in Crime No.05 of 2023 of the Chalakkudy Excise Range Office, Thrissur. The case was registered for offences punishable under Sections 58(2), 28, 29 of 22(c) and 29 of 60(3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, as well as Sections 120B, 195, and 116 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
According to the prosecution, the petitioner conspired with the second accused to implicate a woman named Sheela Sunny in an NDPS case. Pursuant to this conspiracy, he allegedly placed certain stamps, identified as LSD stamps, in the scooter of the said woman and provided false information to the detecting officer, which led to her arrest. The petitioner was arrested on 29 April 2025 and had been in custody since that date.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the petitioner had remained in custody from 29 April 2025 and that neither he nor his relatives were informed of the grounds for his arrest at the time of the arrest. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, stating that the grounds for arrest were communicated to the petitioner at the time of arrest and that since the contraband seized was of commercial quantity, the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied, thereby justifying continued detention.
The Court recorded that prima facie materials existed on record to connect the petitioner to the crime. However, it noted that the issue of whether the grounds for arrest were communicated to the petitioner warranted examination. The Court referred to decisions in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others [(2024) 7 SCC 576], Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC 254], and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana [2025 SCC Online SC 269], which held that informing a person of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The Court also referred to Shahina v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC Online 706], where it was held that this requirement applies to offences under the NDPS Act.
Upon perusal of the arrest memo, the Court found that it referred only to the provisions of law without detailing the grounds for arrest. Similarly, the notice of arrest given to the petitioner’s father referred only to the provisions of law. The Court concluded that in the absence of any specific reference to the grounds for arrest, the arrest stood vitiated.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas stated: "Since petitioner has raised the question of absence of communication of the grounds for his arrest, this Court is obliged to consider the said issue." The Court referred to Supreme Court precedents which established that "the requirement of informing a person of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) and also that the said information must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds must be communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands."
In Shahina v. State of Kerala, the Court noted that it had "considered the impact of the aforesaid principles in relation to offences alleged under the NDPS Act and held that the grounds for arrest must be communicated." The arrest memo in the present case was scrutinised, and the Court recorded: "Except for referring to the provisions of law, there is no reference to any of the grounds for arrest. Similarly, in the notice of arrest given to the father of the petitioner, again there is only a reference to the provisions of law."
The Court further observed: "In the absence of any specific reference to the grounds for arrest of the petitioner, his arrest stands vitiated." This finding formed the basis for granting bail.
The Court directed that the petitioner be released on bail upon executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000 with two solvent sureties of like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court. It ordered that the petitioner must cooperate with the trial of the case, must not intimidate or influence witnesses, must not attempt to tamper with evidence, and must not commit any similar offences while on bail.
The Court further directed that the petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the jurisdictional court. It was stipulated that in case of violation of any of these conditions, or if modification or deletion of the conditions is required, the jurisdictional court is empowered to consider such applications and pass appropriate orders notwithstanding the bail having been granted by the High Court.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri. Salim V.S., Sri. Shanavas S., Shri. K. Muhammed Thoyyib, Smt. A.M. Fousi, Shri. A.B. Ajin
For the Respondent: Smt. Sreeja V., Public Prosecutor
Case Title: M.N. Narayana Das v. State of Kerala
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:60373
Case Number: Bail Appl. No. 9137 of 2025
Bench: Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
