Kerala High Court
Murselim S K vs State Of Kerala on 23 August, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2025:KER:64157
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
SATURDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 1ST BHADRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 9755 OF 2025
CRIME NO.214/2025 OF KORATY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 3:
1 MURSELIM S K
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O INAJUL S.K JOTCHHIDAM, SADIKHAN DIAR P.O
MURSHIDABAD WEST BENGAL, PIN - 742303.
2 BILLAL MANDAL
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O TOJAMMEL MANDAL, BARABIL, RAGHUNATHPUR,
JALANGI, MURSHIDABAD WEST BENGAL, PIN - 742303.
3 SHABUL ISLAM
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O KASHIN SHAIKH JOTCHHIDAM, SADIKHAN DIAR P.O
MURSHIDABAD WEST BENGAL, PIN - 742303.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.FRANCIS ASSISI
SRI.ANVARSHA SHAMSU
SMT.AMRUTHA P S
SMT.MANJU LUCKOSE
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.
SRI. NOUSHAD K. A. (PP)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.NO. 9755 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:64157
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
...............................................
B.A.No. 9755 of 2025
...............................................
Dated this the 23rd 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 1 to 3 in Crime No.214/2025 of
Koratty Police Station, Thrissur, registered alleging offences punishable
under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS’ Act‘).
3. According to the prosecution, on 22.02.2025, the accused
were found in possession of 23.460 Kg of ganja in a rented house at
Muringoor for the purpose of sale, and thereby committed the offences
alleged. Petitioners were arrested on 22.05.2025, and they have been
in custody since then.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
petitioners have been in custody since 22.05.2025. 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 of arrest were communicated to the
B.A.NO. 9755 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:64157
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.
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.
B.A.NO. 9755 OF 2025
4
2025:KER:64157
9. In the instant case, on a perusal of the case records, it is
noticed that the grounds for arrest have not been properly
communicated to the petitioners. Though there is a reference in the
remand report of communication with the relatives, there is nothing to
indicate that the grounds for arrest have been specifically
communicated either to the arrestees’ or their relatives. In such
circumstances, I am satisfied that the grounds for arrest have not been
effectively communicated to the petitioners, as contemplated by law.
10. Petitioners have been in custody from 22.02.2025
onwards. Since the grounds for arrest was not communicated to the
petitioners soon after the arrest, petitioners are entitled to be released
on bail.
11. In the result, this application is allowed on the following
conditions:-
(a) Petitioners shall be released on bail on them executing a
bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each 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 State of Kerala without the
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
B.A.NO. 9755 OF 2025
5
2025:KER:64157
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
mea
B.A.NO. 9755 OF 2025
6
2025:KER:64157
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 9755/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-I A TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST MEMO DATED
22.02.2025 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER
Annexure-II A TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST MEMO DATED
22.02.2025 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER
Annexure-III A TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST MEMO DATED
22.02.2025 ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER