Kerala High Court
Padmacharan Digal Aliayas Pradeep vs State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
BAIL APPL. NO. 9089 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:61897
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 27TH SRAVANA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 9089 OF 2025
CRIME NO.6/2024 OF TRIVANDRUM EXCISE RANGE OFFICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER(S)/HEARING ON CHARGE:
1 PADMACHARAN DIGAL ALIAYAS PRADEEP
AGED 25 YEARS
GALUDI DESOM PATERI WARD, THALAPPARA P O,
CONDRASOR PADA TAZERI VILLAGE, PHULBANI
MUNICIPALITY, KANDHAMAL DISTRICT, ODISHA,
PIN - 762001.
2 DIBASH KUMAR KANHAR
AGED 25 YEARS
GALUDI DESOM THALAPPARA GALUDIH SALAGUDA P O,
CONDRASOR PADA TAZER VILLAGE, PHULBANI MUNICIPALITY,
KANDHAMAL DISTRICT, ODISHA, PIN - 762001.
BY ADV SHRI.ASHISH MOHAN M.A.
RESPONDENT(S)/HEARING ON CHARGES:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031.
2 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXCISE RANGE OFFICER
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXCISE RANGE OFFICE,
PIN - 695001.
BY SRI. PRASANTH M.P., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.08.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 9089 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:61897
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
B.A. No.9089 of 2025
...................................................
Dated this the 18th day of August, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioners are accused Nos.3 and 4 in Crime No.6 of 2024 of Excise Range Office, Thiruvananthapuram, registered for the offences punishable under sections 8(C), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').
3. According to the prosecution, on 25.02.2024, the accused allegedly transported 31.209 Kg. of ganja from Odisha by train and handed over the same to accused 1 and 2, and thereby committed the offences alleged. Petitioners were arrested on 25.02.2024 and they have been in custody since then.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been in custody since 25.02.2024. It was submitted that the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the petitioners or their relatives at the time of their arrest.
5. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 9089 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:61897 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.
6. 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 his 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.
9. On a perusal of the case diary, it is noticed that, the grounds for arrest have not been communicated to the petitioner in the arrest memo. In BAIL APPL. NO. 9089 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:61897 the arrest intimation, there is a reference to the possession of narcotic drugs with the accused. It is intimated to the relative of the accused, who is a native of Odisha, and the language of communication is in Malayalam.
10. Since the grounds for arrest have not been communicated to the arrestee and the intimation to the relative is in a language unknown to the accused's relative, I am of the view that grounds for arrest have not been communicated, in accordance with law. In the result, this application is allowed on the following conditions:-
(a) Petitioners shall be released on bail on each of them executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.
(b) Petitioners shall co-operate with the trial of the case.
(c) Petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall they attempt to tamper with the evidence.
(d) Petitioners shall not commit any similar offences while they are on bail.
(e) Petitioners shall not leave the Country without the permission of the jurisdictional Court.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any modification or deletion of the conditions are required, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider such applications if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.
sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AMV/18/08/2025