Kerala High Court
Simanchal Mukhi vs State Of Kerala on 2 December, 2025
Author: K.Babu
Bench: K. Babu
2025:KER:92907
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 12719 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1/2024 OF Palakkad Excise Range Office, Palakkad
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.617 OF 2024 OF
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT / RENT CONTROL APPELLATE
AUTHORITY , PALAKKAD
-------------------
PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.5 :-
SIMANCHAL MUKHI, AGED 28 YEARS
S/O. BIPRA MUKHI, KANIBALI, TALAPADA, KANDHAMAL,
ODISHA, PIN - 762 100
BY ADVS.
SMT.DHANYA S NAIR
SHRI.RAHUL.S
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :-
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI, PIN - 682 031
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.M K PUSHPALATHA, SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.12719 of 2025
-: 2 :-
2025:KER:92907
K.BABU, J.
-------------------------------------------
B.A. No.12719 of 2025
----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2025
ORDER
This is an application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
2. The petitioner is accused No.5 in Crime No.1 of 2024 of Palakkad Excise Range Office, Palakkad. The offences alleged against the petitioner and other accused are punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
3. The prosecution case is that on 13.01.2024 at about 07:30 PM, accused Nos.1 and 2 were found in possession of 48.700 kgs. of ganja, which was allegedly supplied to them by accused Nos.3 and 4. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he supplied the contraband to accused Nos.3 and 4.
4. The petitioner was formally arrested on 07.02.2025 while he was in custody in connection with another crime. B.A.No.12719 of 2025 -: 3 :-
2025:KER:92907
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to any of the petitioner's relatives or his friends. It is submitted that the officer who arrested the petitioner had not complied with the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the BNSS in the sense that the grounds of arrest were not communicated.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that there is substantial compliance of the requirement regarding the communication of the grounds of arrest.
8. The fundamental object sought to be subserved by Article 22 (1) are the following:
(a) To apprise the arrested person of why he/she is being arrested.
(b) To enable the arrestee to frame his defence against possible detention and to seek appropriate legal aid.
9. The mode of communication of grounds of arrest is to be in such a manner that the effectiveness of the same deserves to be tested on the touchstone whether the mode of communication subserves the fundamental object mentioned above. B.A.No.12719 of 2025 -: 4 :-
2025:KER:92907
10. The mode of conveying information of the grounds of arrest must be meaningful so as to serve the objects sought to be achieved. The requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest to an arrested person is sacrosanct and the same must not be breached under any situation. The grounds should be effectively and fully communicated in the language that the arrestee understands. The grounds of arrest are to be effectively communicated not only to the arrestee but also to his friends, relatives or any other nominated person as envisaged under Section 48 of the BNSS. Non-compliance of this constitutional requirement and the statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the detention of the arrestee or detainee being rendered illegal, as it would amount to violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee or detainee. Filing a chargesheet and order of cognizance will not validate the arrest which is per se unconstitutional. The burden is on the police to establish that the grounds of arrest were properly communicated to the arrestee. {Vide : Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India [(2024) 7 SCC 576], Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC 254], Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228], Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana [(2025) 5 SCC 799], Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another [2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356], B.A.No.12719 of 2025 -: 5 :- 2025:KER:92907 Shahina v. State of Kerala [2025 (5) KHC 203] and Vishnu N.P. v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC OnLine 1262]}.
11. I have gone through the Case Diary. The Case Diary shows that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner's friends, relatives or any other nominated person as envisaged under Section 48 of the BNSS. Therefore, the custody or the detention of the petitioner is rendered illegal.
12. Having regard to the circumstances brought out, I feel that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail on conditions.
In the result, the Bail Application is allowed as follows:
(a) The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
(b) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.
(c) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or attempt to tamper with the evidence.B.A.No.12719 of 2025
-: 6 :-
2025:KER:92907
(d) The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.
(e) If any of the bail conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court will be at liberty to cancel the bail, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
K.BABU JUDGE Jvt/2.12.2025 B.A.No.12719 of 2025 -: 7 :- 2025:KER:92907 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 12719 OF 2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE COPY OF CRIME AND OCCURRENCE REPORT IN NDPS CRIME. NO.1/2024 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD Annexure A2 THE COPY OF ORDER IN CRL.M.P. NO. 512/2025 OF THE HON'BLE SESSIONS COURT ERNAKULAM Annexure A3 THE COPY OF ARREST MEMO DATED 07.02.2025 Annexure A4 THE COPY OF THE ARREST INTIMATION DATED 07.02.2025 Annexure A5 THE COPY OF REPORT FILED BY THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, EXCISE CRIME BRANCH ERNAKULAM, Annexure A6 THE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P. NO. 4149/2025 DATED 16.09.2025 OF THE HON'BLE SESSIONS COURT ERNAKULAM