Kerala High Court
Diya S.K vs State Of Kerala on 15 September, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2025:KER:68201
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 24TH BHADRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 10963 OF 2025
CRIME NO.542/2025 OF ERNAKULAM SOUTH POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.08.2025 IN CRL.M.C NO.2311 OF
2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT/RENT CONTROL
APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4:
DIYA S.K
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O. SHAJIL KUMAR. PRASANTHI, CHELANNUR,
MUNDAKKAL, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 691010.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.RAMAN PILLAI-SR.COUNSEL
SRI.R.ANIL
SHRI.SUJESH MENON V.B.
SRI.THOMAS SABU VADAKEKUT
SHRI.MAHESH BHANU S.
SHRI.RESSIL LONAN
SHRI.ANANTH KRISHNA K.S.
SHRI.GEORGE VINCI JOSE
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, DISTRICT &
SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.
ADV.SRI.PRASANTH M.P., - PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.NO. 10963 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:68201
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
...............................................
B.A.No. 10963 of 2025
...............................................
Dated this the 15th day of September, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner is the fourth accused in Crime No.542/2025 of Ernakulam South Police Station, registered alleging offences punishable under Section 22(c) r/w Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS' Act').
3. According to the prosecution, on 15.07.2025, the accused were found in possession of 114.3566 grams of MDMA and 41.845 grams of Ecstasy from the shelf of the house where they were residing, which were kept for sale and thereby committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested on 15.07.2025 and she has been in custody since then.
4. Sri. V.Raman Pillai, the learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri.Sujesh Menon V.B., the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been in custody since 15.07.2025. It was submitted that the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the petitioner or her relatives at the time of her arrest.
5. Sri. Prasanth M.P., the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that the grounds for arrest were B.A.NO. 10963 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:68201 communicated to the petitioner at the time of her arrest. It was also submitted that since the contraband seized from the petitioner was a commercial quantity, the rigour under section 37 of NDPS Act will apply and hence petitioner ought not to be released on bail.
6. Though prima facie there are materials on record to connect the petitioner with the crime, since petitioner has raised the question of absence of communication of the grounds for her arrest, this Court is obliged to consider the said issue.
7. In the 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 and Another [2025 SCC Online SC 269], it has been held that the requirement of informing a person of grounds for 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.
8. In a recent decision in Shahina vs. State of Kerala [2025 KHC OnLine 706] this Court has also 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. B.A.NO. 10963 OF 2025 4
2025:KER:68201
9. In the instant case, on a perusal of the records of the investigation, it is noticed that the grounds for arrest were communicated to the accused separately. However, there is no communication of the grounds for arrest to any near relative. Despite the petitioner having been arrested on 15.07.2025, it is a pity that DANSAF, who are constituted to investigate crimes related to drugs, failed to comply with the legal requirements. The arrest has been carried out without communicating the grounds for arrest as contemplated by law to the near relatives and hence, the arrest stands vitiated, as observed by the Supreme Court in the decision in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228].
10. Since the petitioner has been in custody from 15.07.2025 pursuant to an illegal arrest, petitioner is liable to be released forthwith.
11. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the Superintendent of District Jail for Women, Kakkanad, to release the petitioner forthwith.
This bail application is disposed as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE mea B.A.NO. 10963 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:68201 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 10963/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure -1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 542/2025 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION Annexure -2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REMAND OF THE PETITIONER Annexure -3 THE TRUE COPY OF ARREST MEMO OF THE PETITIONER Annexure -4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ALLEGED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 50 OF NDPS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER Annexure -5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SEARCH LIST DATED 15-07-2025 IN ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION Annexure -6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20-08- 2025 OF THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-1, ERNAKULAM IN CRL.M.C. NO. 2311 OF 2025