Kerala High Court
Ananda Malik vs State Of Kerala on 29 September, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
B.A.No.11829 of 2025 1
2025:KER:72734
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 7TH ASWINA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 11829 OF 2025
CRIME NO.47/2025 OF Palakkad Excise Range Office, Palakkad
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:
1 ANANDA MALIK, AGED 33 YEARS
S/O. MITTI MALIK, ALIMILA, SAUTIKIA,
KUTIKIA POST, KANDHAMAL, ODISHA,
PIN - 762110
2 KEDARA MALIK, AGED 32 YEARS
S/O. MANGITI MALIK, BUDRUKIA,
ODISHA, PIN - 762103
BY ADVS.
SRI.SAM ISAAC POTHIYIL
SMT.S.SURAJA
SHRI.MUHAMMED SUHAIR C.A
SHRI.ABHILASH C.V.
SMT.SETHULAKSHMI R.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
B.A.No.11829 of 2025 2
2025:KER:72734
2 EXCISE RANGE OFFICE PALAKKAD
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678508
SMT. SREEJA V., PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.11829 of 2025 3
2025:KER:72734
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
B.A.No.11829 of 2025
...................................................
Dated this the 29th day of September, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.47 of 2025 of the Excise Range Office, Palakkad, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [for brevity, 'NDPS Act'].
3. According to the prosecution, on 14.04.2025 at about 3.30 p.m., accused were found transporting 22.18 Kg. of ganja in a K.S.R.T.C. bus for the purpose of sale, and thereby committed the offences alleged. Petitioners were arrested on 14.04.2025 and they have been in custody since then.
4. Heard Sri.Sam Isaac Pothiyil, the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that B.A.No.11829 of 2025 4 2025:KER:72734 petitioners have been in custody since 14.04.2025. It was also submitted that the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the petitioners or their relatives at the time of their arrest.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that the grounds for arrest were communicated to the petitioners at the time of their arrest. It was also submitted that since the contraband seized from the petitioners was a commercial quantity, the rigour under Section 37 of NDPS Act will apply and hence petitioners ought not to be released on bail.
7. Though prima facie there are materials on record to connect the petitioners with the crime, since petitioners have raised the question of absence of communication of the grounds for their arrest, this Court is obliged to consider the said issue.
8. 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 [AIR 2025 SC 1388], it has been held that the requirement of informing a person of grounds for arrest is a B.A.No.11829 of 2025 5 2025:KER:72734 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.
9. In a recent decision in Shahina v. 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.
10. On a perusal of the records of investigation, it is noticed that the grounds for arrest have not been communicated to the petitioners. The arrest intimation has also not been given in accordance with law. In view of the failure to provide the intimation of arrest or communicate the grounds for arrest to the relatives of the petitioners, I am satisfied that petitioners have not been communicated with the grounds for arrest as contemplated by law. In such circumstances, petitioners' arrest is vitiated.
11. Petitioners have been in custody from 24.04.2025 B.A.No.11829 of 2025 6 2025:KER:72734 onwards. Since the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the petitioners soon after the arrest, they are entitled to be released on bail.
12. Even though the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation has not yet been completed, I am of the view that petitioners can be directed to be released forthwith.
Accordingly, the Superintendent of District Jail, Malampuzha, wherein petitioners are lodged, is directed to release them forthwith.
The bail application is disposed of.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE sp/29/09/2025 B.A.No.11829 of 2025 7 2025:KER:72734 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 11829/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER DATED 27.08.2025 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT IN CRL.M.C. NO. 4267/2025 AND CRL.M.C. NO 4601/2025