Kerala High Court
Maggi Ashna A F vs State Of Kerala on 12 March, 2026
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
2026:KER:22320
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 1273 OF 2026
CRIME NO.75/2025 OF PALLURUTHY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.09.2025 IN Bail Appl.
NO.10065 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5:
MAGGI ASHNA A F,
AGED 24 YEARS
D/O.FRANCIS A S, ATTIPETTI HOUSE NO.15,
ELAMKUNNAPUZHA, AZHEEKKAL P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682508
SMT.RESMA RACHEL ITTYIPE
SRI.T.M.DOLGOVE
SMT.M.NEEMA
SMT.ANASWARA SABU
SMT.LINI M.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, THROUGH SHO, PALLURUTHY POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031
SRI.M.C. ASHI, SR. PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:22320
BAIL APPL. NO. 1273 OF 2026
2
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.5 in Crime No.75/2025 of Palluruthy Police Station, Ernakulam District. The offence alleged is punishable under Section 22(c) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act').
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 30.01.2025, 108.9378 grams of MDMA were seized from the possession of applicant No.1 at a rented house in Palluruthy. It is alleged that it was the applicant who supplied the contraband.
4. I have heard Smt.Resma Rachel Ittyipe, 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 25.03.2025, and the grounds of arrest were not communicated in accordance with the law at the time of her arrest. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, 2026:KER:22320 BAIL APPL. NO. 1273 OF 2026 3 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 her arrest, let me consider the same.
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 2026:KER:22320 BAIL APPL. NO. 1273 OF 2026 4 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 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 her arrest. Accordingly, she was produced, and her 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 or his relative is not necessary.
9. In Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) and Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra), the warrant referred to was the warrant 2026:KER:22320 BAIL APPL. NO. 1273 OF 2026 5 issued 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 her 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 her of the grounds for her arrest separately. The order/warrant in Form No.37 itself is sufficient to comply with the requirement. However, even in such cases, the communication of the grounds for arrest to the relative of the accused is mandatory [See Ashique v. State of Kerala (2026 2026:KER:22320 BAIL APPL. NO. 1273 OF 2026 6 KHC OnLine 213). In this case, since the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the relatives of the applicant in accordance with the law, the arrest stands vitiated, and the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions: -
(i) The applicant shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate/Court.
(ii) The applicant shall fully co-operate with the investigation.
(iii) The applicant shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m. every Saturday until further orders. She shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required.
(iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence of a like nature while on bail.
(v) The applicant shall not attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any 2026:KER:22320 BAIL APPL. NO. 1273 OF 2026 7 witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.
(vi) The applicant shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.
(vii) The application, if any, for deletion/modification of the bail conditions or cancellation of bail on the grounds of violating the bail conditions shall be filed at the jurisdictional court.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE NP 2026:KER:22320 BAIL APPL. NO. 1273 OF 2026 8 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 1273 OF 2026 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-1 COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MP NO.5616/2025 DATED 16/01/2025 BY THE ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-I ERNAKULAM Annexure 2 COPY OF THE ORDER IN BA 9091/2025 DATED 11/08/2025 Annexure-3 COPY OF THE ORDER IN BA 13008/2025 DATED 09/02/2025 Annexure-4 COPY OF THE ORDER IN BA 12279/2025 DATED 09/02/2025 Annexure - 5 COPY OF THE BAIL ORDER GRANTED TO ACCUSED NO.6 FROM HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN B.A 807/2026 DATED 04/03/2026