Kerala High Court
Akhil Santhosh vs State Of Kerala on 11 March, 2026
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
B.A.No. 975 of 2026
..1..
2026:KER:21824
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 975 OF 2026
CRIME NO.1422/2022 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2023 IN BAIL APPL. NO.926 OF
2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
AKHIL SANTHOSH
AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. SANTHOSH,
POINTHARAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
POINTHARA COLONY, MARKET ROAD,
TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM,
KERALA., PIN - 682301
BY ADVS.
SHRI.BALAMURALI K.P.
SMT.HARIPRIYA.M
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
SRI.M.C. ASHI, SR. PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No. 975 of 2026
..2..
2026:KER:21824
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.1422/2022 of Palarivattom Police Station, Ernakulam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 323, 324, 452, 395, 365, 506(ii) & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 06.12.2022 at 2:30 a.m., due to previous enmity with the defacto complainant that his friend sent a complaint to the Chief Minister of Kerala regarding the drug business of the accused, the accused in furtherance of their common intention trespassed into the KNU Gents Hostel armed with deadly weapons and stripped the defacto complainant and his friend Vijayakumar, took their naked photos, sprayed pepper spray on their private parts, beat them, threatened them by showing sword stick, knife and dangerous weapons and snatched the gold B.A.No. 975 of 2026 ..3..
2026:KER:21824 chain and gold ring of the defacto complainant, robbed HP laptop, blue tooth headset, hard drive, power bank, shoes, Rs.1 lakh, kidnapped the defacto complainant's friend and thereby committed the offences.
4. I have heard Sri.K.P.Balamurali, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.M.C.Ashi, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 21.11.2024, and the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the applicant at the time of his arrest. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, opposed the bail application and submitted that the grounds of arrest were duly communicated.
6. Though prima facie there are materials on record to connect the applicant with the crime, since the applicant has raised the question of absence of communication of the grounds of his arrest, let me consider the same.
B.A.No. 975 of 2026
..4..
2026:KER:21824
7. It is now well settled that the requirement of informing a person of the grounds for arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of BNSS, and absence of the same would render the arrest illegal (See. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others [(2024) 7 SCC 576], Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC 254], Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others (2025 SCC OnLine SC 269] and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356). The Supreme Court in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228) has held that the grounds of arrest should not only be provided to the arrestee but also to his family members and relatives so that necessary arrangements are made to secure the release of the person arrested at the earliest possible opportunity so as to make the mandate of Art.22(1) meaningful and effective, failing which, such arrest would be rendered illegal. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Alvin B.A.No. 975 of 2026 ..5..
2026:KER:21824 Riby v. State of Kerala (2025 KER 67079) following Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra) held that failure to communicate the grounds of arrest to the near relatives renders the arrest illegal.
8. In this case, the applicant, who was in judicial custody in connection with another case, was produced on a production warrant pursuant to an application filed by the investigating officer to record his arrest. Accordingly, he was produced, and his arrest was recorded. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, relying on the dictum laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) and Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra), submitted that if a person is arrested on a warrant, if the warrant is read over to him, that is sufficient compliance with the requirement that he should be informed of the grounds of his arrest. It was further submitted that in such circumstances, the communication of the grounds for arrest in writing separately to the accused is not necessary.
In Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) and Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra), the warrant referred to was the warrant issued B.A.No. 975 of 2026 ..6..
2026:KER:21824 under Section 70 of Cr.P.C. (Section 72 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNSS') in Form No.3 of Schedule II. However, in this case, the warrant issued was not under Section 72 of BNSS in Form No.3. In fact, it is an order issued under Section 302 of BNSS (Section 267 of Cr.P.C.) in Form No.37 of Schedule II. I see no reason not to extend the finding concerning the warrant issued under Section 72 of BNSS in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) and Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra) to the order issued under Section 302 of BNSS in Form No.37 as well. The order in Form No.37 is addressed to the officer in charge of the jail where the applicant is lodged. In paragraph No.3 of Form No.37, there is a specific direction to the officer-in-charge of the jail to inform the accused of the contents of the order and to deliver him the attached copy thereof. Therefore, I hold that when the formal arrest of an accused is recorded pursuant to an order/production warrant issued under Section 302 of BNSS, there is no requirement to inform him of the grounds for his arrest separately. The order/warrant in Form B.A.No. 975 of 2026 ..7..
2026:KER:21824 No.37 itself is sufficient to comply with the requirement [See Ashique v. State of Kerala (2026 KHC OnLine 213)]. No other point has been canvassed. Hence, the bail application is dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE APA B.A.No. 975 of 2026 ..8..
2026:KER:21824 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 975 OF 2026 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/03/2023 IN CRL.M.C. NO.731/2023 PASSED BY SESSION COURT, ERNAKULAM GRANTING BAIL TO ONE OF THE CO ACCUSED