Kerala High Court
Shahina vs State Of Kerala on 4 July, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
1
2025:KER:48864
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 6366 OF 2025
CRIME NO.727/2024 OF WALAYAR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
SHAHINA
AGED 22 YEARS, D/O. HASHIM, KUNNETHARA,
PADIYETTATHIL,
MAMUSOWTH, ALUMKADAVU, KARUNAGAPALLY,
KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN - 690518.
BY ADV SHRI.N.A.SHAFEEK
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682031.
BY SRI. NOUSHAD K.A, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.06.2025 ALONG WITH BAIL APPL. Nos.6621, 6676, 6677, 6989,
6996, 7025, 7162 AND 7266 OF 2025, THE COURT ON 04.07.2025
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
2
2025:KER:48864
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 6621 OF 2025
CRIME NO.6/2024 OF PALAKKAD EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 12.12.2024 IN Bail Appl.
NO.8990 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED (IN CUSTODY FROM 2.2.2024):
NAZRUDHEEN,
AGED 32 YEARS, S/O ABDUL NAZAR.C.V.,
C.V.HOUSE,
PAALOONNI VAYAL, ARIKINAR.P.O.,
BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673 028.
BY ADVS. SMT.SAIPOOJA
SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH
SRI.LIBIN STANLEY
SRI.SADIK ISMAYIL
SMT.R.GAYATHRI
SRI.M.MAHIN HAMZA
SHRI.ALWIN JOSEPH
SHRI.BENSON AMBROSE
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.
2 THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER (ENFORCEMENT)
EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD P.O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001.
BY SRI. PRASANTH.M.P., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.06.2025, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL. NO.6366/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 04.07.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
3
2025:KER:48864
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 6676 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1034/2024 OF MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CMP NO.905 OF 2025 OF
I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT/ RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5:
SNEHITH,
AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. SHIBU SERLIN,
PUSHPARAJ BHAVAN,
NEAR ST. MATHEWS, HS POZHIYOOR,
KULATHOOR VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695513.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
SMT.N.P.ASHA
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031.
BY SRI. NOUSHAD K.A, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.06.2025, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL.NO.6366/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 04.07.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
4
2025:KER:48864
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 6677 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1034/2024 OF MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 24.02.2025 IN CMP NO.679
OF 2025 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT/ RENT CONTROL APPELLATE
AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6:
AFZAL SHAJAHAN
AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. SHAJAHAN,
KOCHUTHOTTATHIL VEEDU,
NEAR THEKKUTHODU, GURU MANIRAM,
THEKKUTHODU DESOM, THANNITHODE VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689669.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
SMT.N.P.ASHA
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031.
BY SMT.SREEJA.V., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.06.2025, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL.NO.6366/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 04.07.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
5
2025:KER:48864
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 6989 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1224/2024 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1(IN CUSTODY FROM 6.12.2024):
MUHAMMED JASHIR,
AGED 31 YEARS, S/O YOUSAF,
ERATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
SMASANAM ROAD, VADOOKKARA P.O,
KOORKKANCHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
NOW RESIDING AT VATTATHARA HOUSE,
CHAKKARAPPARAMBU- KOTTANAKAVU ROAD,
VENNALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 682 028.
BY ADVS. SMT.SAIPOOJA
SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH
SRI.LIBIN STANLEY
SRI.SADIK ISMAYIL
SMT.R.GAYATHRI
SRI.M.MAHIN HAMZA
SHRI.ALWIN JOSEPH
SHRI.BENSON AMBROSE
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, PALARIVATTOM P.O,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682025.
BY SMT.SREEJA.V., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.06.2025, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL.NO.6366/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 04.07.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
6
2025:KER:48864
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 6996 OF 2025
CRIME NO.484/2024 OF KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 23.05.2025 IN Bail Appl.
NO.5468 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4(IN CUSTODY FROM 26.6.2024):
PRASEETHA. B.,
AGED 24 YEARS, W/O GIREESH,
THEKKUMPURATHU HOUSE,
MUNDUR, MUNDUR P.O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678592.
BY ADVS. SMT.SAIPOOJA
SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH
SRI.LIBIN STANLEY
SRI.SADIK ISMAYIL
SMT.R.GAYATHRI
SRI.M.MAHIN HAMZA
SHRI.ALWIN JOSEPH
SHRI.BENSON AMBROSE
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KUNNAMANGALAM P.O,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673571.
BY SRI. NOUSHAD K.A, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.06.2025, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL.NO.6366/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 04.07.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
7
2025:KER:48864
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 7025 OF 2025
CRIME NO.866/2024 OF MANJESWAR POLICE STATION, KASARGOD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED (IN CUSTODY FROM 4.12.2024):
NIZAMUDHEEN P.P.,
AGED 35 YEARS, S/O SUHARA P.P.,
PUTHIYAPURAYIL, 16/111,
ETTAMMAL, KOLAVAYAL, AJANUR,
KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671531.
BY ADVS. SMT.SAIPOOJA
SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH
SRI.LIBIN STANLEY
SRI.SADIK ISMAYIL
SMT.R.GAYATHRI
SRI.M.MAHIN HAMZA
SHRI.ALWIN JOSEPH
SHRI.BENSON AMBROSE
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
MANJESWAR POLICE STATION, MANJESWAR P.O,
KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671323.
BY SRI. NOUSHAD K.A, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.06.2025, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL.NO.6366/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 04.07.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
8
2025:KER:48864
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 7162 OF 2025
CRIME NO.906/2024 OF SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE STATION, WAYANAD
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 05.03.2025 IN Bail Appl.
NO.2851 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED (IN CUSTODY FROM 22.10.2024):
MUHAMMED RUFINE,
AGED 30 YEARS, S/O MOIDHEENKUTTY,
KARIVARAVATTATH HOUSE,
THRIKKALAGODE P.O.,MANJERI,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 123.
BY ADVS. SMT.SAIPOOJA
SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH
SRI.LIBIN STANLEY
SRI.SADIK ISMAYIL
SMT.R.GAYATHRI
SRI.M.MAHIN HAMZA
SHRI.ALWIN JOSEPH
SHRI.BENSON AMBROSE
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFFICER
SULTHAN BATHERY, SULTHAN BATHERY P.O,
WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673592.
BY SRI. PRASANTH M.P., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.06.2025, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL.NO.6366/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 04.07.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
9
2025:KER:48864
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 7266 OF 2025
CRIME NO.98/2025 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 09.05.2025 IN CRMC
NO.1189 OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT/RENT CONTROL
APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED :
ACHINTHA MONDAL,
AGED 44 YEARS,S/O HRISHIPADA MONDAL,
NATUN RAJPUR,
JAZIRA CHAR DUMURIA, JAJRIA CHARDUMURIYA,
MURSHIDABAD, WEST BENGAL, PIN - 742149.
BY ADV SMT.N.B.FATHIMA SULFATH
RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CENTRAL POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682 018.
BY SRI. NOUSHAD K.A, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.06.2025, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL.NO.6366/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 04.07.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
10
2025:KER:48864
"C.R."
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------
B.A. Nos. 6366, 6621, 6676, 6677,
6989, 6996, 7025, 7162 &
7266 of 2025
---------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of July, 2025
COMMON ORDER
Petitioners in these applications seek regular bail under
section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short
‘the BNSS’). Since the accused in all these applications are alleged to
have committed offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act‘), and they claim the
right to be released on bail alleging that the grounds for arrest have
not been communicated, the cases are being disposed by this
common order.
2. I have heard Sri. Babu S. Nair, Sri. N.A. Shafeek,
Sri. K.K. Dheerendra Krishnan, Smt. Sai Pooja and Smt. Fathima
Sulfath N.B, the learned counsel for the respective petitioners. It was
contended that the entire allegations against the petitioners are false
and they are all innocent. Apart from contending that there is a total
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
11
2025:KER:48864
absence of any material to connect the petitioners with the offence,
the learned counsel submitted that the constitutional right of being
informed of the grounds for arrest was not complied with, and
therefore, the accused ought to be released forthwith.
3. Sri. K.A Noushad, the learned Public Prosecutor on the
other hand submitted that the petitioners in each of these cases are
involved in serious offences for possession of commercial quantities
of narcotic drugs, and therefore, the rigour under section 37 of the
NDPS Act applies. It was also submitted that the materials collected
during investigation clearly point to the guilt of the accused, and
therefore, there is no reason to release them on bail. As regards the
contention based on the mandate of Article 22 of the Constitution of
India, that the grounds for arrest must be informed to the arrestee, it
was pointed out that the said requirement has been complied with
scrupulously and the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners
are vague and not specific.
4. I have considered the rival contentions and have perused
the relevant records from the case diary, copies of which were
furnished by the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Two issues that require consideration are (i) Whether the
long period of custody without trial, entitles the accused to be
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
12
2025:KER:48864
released on bail, especially when they are alleged to have committed
offences for possessing commercial quantities of narcotic drugs? and
(ii) Whether the grounds for arrest have been communicated to the
petitioners in these cases at the time of arrest?
Issue No. (i). Whether the long period of custody without trial entitles
the accused to be released on bail, especially when they are alleged
to have committed offences for possessing commercial quantities of
narcotic drugs?
6. Petitioners in these bail applications are all alleged to
have committed offences under the NDPS Act for possessing
commercial quantities of narcotic drugs. All of them are arrayed as
accused in different crimes. Since the offence involves commercial
quantity of narcotic drugs, the rigour under section 37 of the NDPS
Act applies. In the decision in State of Kerala and Others v.
Rajesh and Others [(2020) 12 SCC 122], it was observed that the
scheme of section 37 of NDPS Act requires that the power to grant
bail under the NDPS Act is subject to the limitation placed in the said
provision over and apart from the restrictions under the procedural
law and the twin conditions stipulated therein, are required to be
satisfied. In all these cases, the Public Prosecutor has opposed the
applications. Hence only if the court is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that an accused is not guilty of such
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
13
2025:KER:48864
offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail,
can the accused be released on bail. In these cases, there are no
materials to arrive at a conclusion that the respective accused are not
guilty of the offences alleged and hence the rigour under section 37
of NDPS Act is not diluted. Therefore, the question is whether the
long period of detention by itself is sufficient to release the petitioners
on bail.
7. Generally, a long period of detention is a criteria that a
Constitutional Court may identify as a reason for releasing an accused
on bail. In Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024
SCC OnLine SC 2730) a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court had
observed that failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time
resulting in prolonged incarceration violates the fundamental right
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in such
cases, the constitutional liberty overrides the statutory embargo
created under section section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act.
8. However, in the decision in Narcotics Control Bureau V.
Mohit Aggarwal [(2022) 18 SCC 374], it has been observed that the
length of the period of custody or that the charge sheet had been
filed or even that the trial has not commenced by themselves are not
considerations that can be treated as persuasive to grant bail under
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
14
2025:KER:48864
section 37 of the NDPS Act. The decision in Mohit Aggarwal (supra)
was rendered by a Bench of three Judges and hence the said decision
is binding by the law of precedents. The decision in Mohit Aggarwal
(supra) was not brought to the notice of the Court that rendered the
decision in Ankur Chaudhary (supra). Hence the principles in Mohit
Aggarwal (supra) is binding on this Court. Thus the period of
custody has no bearing in the matter of bail in a case involving
commercial quantities of drugs under the NDPS Act.
Issue No. (ii). Whether the grounds for arrest have been
communicated to the petitioners in these cases at the time of arrest?
9. Article 22(1) of the Constitution states that no person who
is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as
soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. Section 52(1) of the
NDPS Act states that any officer arresting a person under the
provisions of the said Act, shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the
grounds for such arrest. Section 47(1) of BNSS (erstwhile section 50
of Cr.P.C) also provides that every police officer arresting a person
without warrant must forthwith communicate to him the full
particulars of the offence or other grounds for such arrest. Thus, it is
a constitutional as well as a statutory right to be informed of the
grounds for arrest as soon as may be.
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
15
2025:KER:48864
10. In the decision in Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India
and Others [(2024) 7 SCC 576], the Supreme Court has held that
the accused has a constitutional and statutory right to be informed of
the grounds for arrest which are compulsorily recorded in writing by
the authorised officer under section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002. Again, in the decision in Prabir Purkayastha
vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC 254] it was held that the
requirement to communicate the grounds for arrest in writing to a
person arrested in connection with an offence as provided under
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be
breached under any situation. It was further observed that non-
compliance of the constitutional requirement and statutory mandate
would lead to the custody being rendered illegal.
11. Dealing with the distinction between reasons for arrest
and grounds for arrest, it was observed that, the reasons for arrest
as indicated in the arrest memo are purely formal parameters to
prevent the accused from committing any further offence; for proper
investigation of the offence; to prevent the accused from causing the
evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence
in any manner; to prevent the arrested person from making
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
16
2025:KER:48864
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to
the Court or to the Investigating Officer. These reasons would
commonly apply to any person arrested on the charge of a crime. As
far as the grounds for arrest are concerned, it was observed that they
are required to contain all such details in the hands of the
Investigating Officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused and
it must convey all basic facts on which an accused is being arrested
so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against
custodial remand and to seek bail. The Court went on to hold that the
grounds for arrest would invariably be personal to the accused and
cannot be equated with the reasons for arrest which are general in
nature.
12. Yet again, in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana
[AIR 2025 SC 1388], the Supreme Court held that the requirement of
informing the person arrested of the grounds for arrest is not a
formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement. The Court went
on to hold that, it is a fundamental right of every person arrested and
detained in custody, to be informed of the grounds for arrest as soon
as possible and if the accused is not so informed, it would amount to
a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. It will also amount to
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
17
2025:KER:48864
depriving the arrestee of his liberty since under Article 21, no person
can be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the
procedure established by law and the procedure includes what is
provided in Article 22(1).
13. Though the requirement of furnishing the grounds for
arrest is not open for any debate in the light of the binding
precedents, during the course of arguments, it transpired that there
was a cleavage of views even amongst the learned Counsel
themselves regarding whether the grounds for arrest must be
informed in writing or whether it need be only communicated in a
manner which can be comprehended by the accused. Hence the said
issue has to be addressed at this juncture.
14. In Pankaj Bansal‘s case (supra) a Bench of the
Supreme Court has observed that “We hold that it would be necessary,
henceforth, that a copy of such written grounds for arrest is furnished to the
arrested person as a matter of course and without exception .”
15. However in the decision in Vihaan Kumar (supra) a
coordinate Bench of the Supreme Court clarified that Article 22(1) of
the Constitution of India does not stipulate informing the grounds for
arrest in writing and went on to observe that what was stated in the
decision in Pankaj Bansal (supra) were only suggestions that merit
consideration. The following observations from Vihaan Kumar are
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
18
2025:KER:48864
relevant:-
“We have already referred to what is held in paragraphs 42
and 43 of the decision in the case of Pankaj Bansal [(2024)
7 SCC 576]. This court has suggested that the proper and
ideal course of communicating the grounds of arrest is to
provide grounds of arrest in writing. Obviously, before a police
officer communicates the grounds of arrest, the grounds of
arrest have to be formulated. Therefore, there is no harm if
the grounds of arrest are communicated in writing. Although
there is no requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest
in writing, what is stated in paragraphs 42 and 43 of the
decision in the case of Pankaj Bansal are suggestions that
merit consideration. We are aware that in every case, it may
not be practicable to implement what is suggested. If the
course, as suggested, is followed, the controversy about the
non-compliance will not arise at all. The police have to balance
the rights of a person arrested with the interests of the
society. Therefore, the police should always scrupulously
comply with the requirements of Article 22.”
16. Indubitably, the above decisions of the Supreme Court
proceed on two different lines. The difficulty lies in the question as to
which of these decisions should the High Court follow, especially in
the light of the principle that even an obiter dictum of the Supreme
Court is binding on the High Courts.
17. While confronted with a situation where divergent views
are rendered by the Supreme Court Benches of co-equal strength,
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
19
2025:KER:48864
the option available with a High Court are: (i) if there are two
irreconcilable decisions and the subsequent decision has not
considered the earlier decision, the subsequent decision would be per
incuriam, (ii) if the subsequent decision had noted, considered and
explained the earlier decision, then the High Court must follow the
subsequent decision, and (iii) if the earlier decision was noted in the
subsequent decision but not explained, the High Court can reconcile
the two conflicting decisions.
18. In a recent decision in M/s. IVECO Magirus
Brandschutztechnik GMBH v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya
[(2024) 2 SCC 86], it has been observed as follows:
“What applies to the Judges of the High Courts faced with
decisions of this Court where a cleavage of opinion is
discernible, and particularly when the High Courts are
technically bound by both decisions, equally applies to Hon’ble
Judges of this Court. It would be inappropriate for a Bench,
comprised of 2 (two) Judges of this Court, to hold which line of
decisions lays down the correct law. In such a scenario, when
there are decisions of this Court not expressing views in sync
with each other, the first course to be adopted is to ascertain
which is the decision that has been rendered by a larger Bench.
Obviously, inter se decisions of this Court, a decision of a
Constitution Bench would be binding on the Benches of lesser
strength. None of the decisions that we have considered is
rendered by a Constitution Bench. However, a sole judgment
rendered by a Bench of 4 (four) Hon’ble Judges and 3 (three)
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/202520
2025:KER:48864
decisions rendered by the Benches comprised of 3 (three)
Hon’ble Judges are there, which call for deference. Ordinarily,
the decision of a larger Bench has to be preferred unless of
course a Bench of lesser strength doubts an earlier view,
formulates the point for answer and refers the matter for
further consideration by a larger Bench in accordance with law.
If, however, the decisions taking divergent views are rendered
by Benches of co – equal strength, the next course to be
adopted is to attempt to reconcile the views that appear to be
divergent and to explain those contrary decisions by assuming,
to the extent possible, that they applied to different facts. The
other course available is to look at whether the previous
decision has been noticed, considered and explained in the
subsequent decision; if not, the earlier decision continues to
remain binding whereas if the answer is in the affirmative, the
subsequent decision becomes the binding decision. We add a
caveat that if the subsequent Bench, instead of deciding the
matter before it finally upon consideration of the decision of the
earlier Bench, formulates the point of difference and makes a
reference for a decision by a larger Bench, it is the former
decision that continues to govern the field so long the larger
Bench does not decide the reference.” (emphasis supplied)
19. Viewed in the backdrop of the above principles of
precedent, it is evident that since the decision in Vihaan Kumar
(supra) considered the decisions in Pankaj Bansal (supra) and
Prabir Purkayastha (supra) and clarified that communicating the
grounds for arrest need not necessarily be in writing though that
would be advisable, the said ratio becomes binding on the High
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
21
2025:KER:48864
Courts.
20. After elaborating upon the constitutional requirement of
the right to be informed of the grounds for arrest under Article
22(1), the Supreme Court had, in Vihaan Kumar’s case (supra)
explained the decision in Pankaj Bansal (supra) and laid down six
principles that should guide every authority arresting an accused. In
yet another recent decision in Kasireddy Upender Reddy vs. State
of Andhra Pradesh and Others [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228], the
Supreme Court clarified that the grounds for arrest in respect of a
person arrested on a warrant is not required to be furnished to him
separately. It was also observed that the grounds for arrest must be
communicated not only to the arrestee but also to the family
members.
21. On reconciling the above decisions of the Supreme Court,
the following ten principles can be culled out:
(i). The requirement of informing a person arrested of the
grounds for arrest is a mandatory requirement under Article
22(1);
(ii). The information of the grounds for arrest must be provided
to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient
knowledge of the basic facts constituting the offence is imparted
and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the
language which he understands. The mode and method of
communication must be such that the object of the
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/202522
2025:KER:48864
constitutional safeguard is achieved;
(iii). When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the
requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the
Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance with the
requirements of Article 22(1);
(iv). Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the
fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article
and it will vitiate the arrest. Moreover it will amount to a
violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21
of the Constitution.
(v). When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial
Magistrate for remand, it is a duty of the Magistrate to ascertain
the compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory
safeguards;
(vi). For the purpose of compliance of Article 22(1), it is not
necessary to furnish full details of the offence but information
should be sufficient to enable the arrestee to understand why he
has been arrested. The grounds to be communicated should be
somewhat similar to the charge framed by the Court for the trial
of the case.
(vii). If the police want to prove communication of the grounds
for arrest only based on a case diary entry, it is necessary to
incorporate those grounds for arrest in the case diary entry or
any other document. The grounds for arrest must exist before
the same are informed.
(viii). When an accused is arrested on warrant, there is no
requirement to furnish the grounds for arrest separately as the
very warrant itself contains the reason for arrest and that a
reading of the warrant to him is sufficient compliance with the
requirement of informing the grounds for his arrest.
(ix). The grounds for arrest should not only be provided to the
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/202523
2025:KER:48864
arrestee but also to his family members and relatives/friends so
that necessary arrangements are made to secure the release of
the person arrested at the earliest possible opportunity so as to
make the mandate of Article 22(1) meaningful and effective,
failing which, such arrest may be rendered illegal.
(x). When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is a duty
of the court to forthwith order release of the accused. That will
be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the
grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the
power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21
and 22 of the Constitution is established.
22. In this context, it has to be borne in mind that under the
NDPS Act, unlike in other statutes, the very possession of a narcotic
drug itself, that too in intermediate and commercial quantities, would
constitute a ‘ground of arrest’. In such instances, the requirement for
arrest stems from possession and it need not be just to prevent
further offences or to ensure proper investigation or presence in court
or to prevent tampering with evidence. The Parliament enacted the
NDPS Act with an objective of providing deterrence to the menace of
drug abuse in India. Consequently the provisions contained therein
are very stringent compared to other statutes. The said objective
cannot be lost sight of while considering the issue.
23. In the light of the above principles, it has to be
ascertained whether the grounds for arrest have been communicated
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
24
2025:KER:48864
to the accused in each of the cases under consideration.
B.A No. 6366/2025.
24. Petitioner is the second accused in crime No. 727 of 2024
of Walayar Police Station. On 25-08-2024, petitioner was arrested
while transporting 96.57 grams of Methamphetamine. The seizure
mahazar, the arrest memo, and the arrest intimation are relied upon
by the prosecution in a bid to convince this Court that grounds for
arrest have been communicated to the accused. These documents
are referred to as contemporaneous records to show communication
of the grounds for arrest. Though in the seizure mahazar there is a
vague reference to the reason for arrest, the same cannot be treated
as communication of the grounds for arrest as contemplated by law.
Thus, there is nothing to indicate that the grounds for arrest have
been noted in any contemporaneous record nor is there any
indication that such grounds for arrest have been communicated to
the accused. The arrest of the petitioner is thus illegal due to the
failure to communicate the grounds for arrest as required under
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as section 52(1) of
the NDPS Act.
B.A. No. 6676/2025 and B.A. No. 6677/2025
25. The petitioners in these two cases are accused 5 and 6 in
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
25
2025:KER:48864
Crime No. 1034 of 2024 of Mangalapuram Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram. Accused 1 to 3 in the above crime were
arrested on 14-12-2024, having been found in possession of 58.180
grams of MDMA which was subsequently identified as
Methamphetamine. The contraband was procured from Bengaluru on
the instructions of the fourth accused, pursuant to a conspiracy with
the petitioners. Both petitioners were arrested on 26.12.2024 and
they have been in custody since then. There is no written intimation
of the grounds for arrest but the contemporaneous records relied
upon by the prosecution to show that grounds for arrest have been
communicated to the accused are the recordings in the case diary,
arrest memo and the arrest intimation of both the accused. However
the documents relied upon by the prosecution do not indicate
anything to infer that the grounds for arrest were communicated to
the accused. In the absence of any material to indicate that the
grounds for arrest have been communicated to the petitioners or
specifically noted in any contemporaneous record as having been
communicated effectively, their arrests are illegal for infringement of
the requirements under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as
well as section 52(1) of the NDPS Act.
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
26
2025:KER:48864
B.A. No. 7162/2025
26. In the instant case, petitioner is the accused in Crime
No. 906 of 2024 of Sulthan Bathery Police Station, Wayanad.
Petitioner was arrested on 22-10-2024 having been found to be in
possession of 68.92 grams of MDMA. The arrest memo mentions
specifically in the column for “Reasons/Grounds for Arrest” that he is
being arrested “for possession of prohibited narcotic drugs”. The said
memo was received by the accused indicating communication of the
grounds for arrest. On a reading of the grounds for arrest as
mentioned in the arrest memo, which contains petitioner’s signature
as well, it is evident that information sufficient enough to enable the
petitioner to understand why he has been arrested has been
mentioned. In the seizure mahazar also, there is a reference that
petitioner was informed that he was in possession of a prohibited
drug in the nature of MDMA and that he was arrested after convincing
him about the same. There are also materials available to indicate
that petitioner’s relative by the name of Muhammed Tanhan was
informed in the address and mobile phone given by the accused. The
giving of intimation to the relative is recorded in the report submitted
to the Judicial First Class Magistrate -I, Sulthan Bathery on
22-10-2024 itself as well as in case diary. Thus, it is evident that
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
27
2025:KER:48864
petitioner’s arrest was in compliance with the requirements of law
and hence the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.
B.A. No. 6996/2025
27. Petitioner is the fourth accused in crime No. 484 of 2024
of Kunnamangalam Police Station. According to the prosecution,
petitioner along with the other accused were found to be in
possession of 141.88 grams of Methamphetamine on 26-06-2024 and
petitioner was arrested on the spot itself. The records indicate only a
vague reference in the seizure mahazar about the arrest being made
on account of possession of prohibited narcotic drugs. There is
nothing to indicate that the grounds for arrest have been
communicated to the petitioner in the instant case. Hence petitioner’s
arrest is illegal for the failure to communicate the grounds for arrest.
B.A. No.6989/2025
28. Petitioner is the first accused in crime No. 1224 of 2024
of Palarivattom Police Station. He was arrested on 06-12-2024 for
having in his possession 52.80 grams of MDMA. The seizure memo
indicates that petitioner was informed that possession of MDMA is
illegal and thereafter he was arrested. The case diary also specifically
mentions that the petitioner was informed of the details of the
offence committed by him and also intimated in writing to his live-in
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
28
2025:KER:48864
partner. The custody memo (arrest memo) which contains the
signature of the petitioner indicates that he is being arrested for
illegal possession of MDMA and that he will be produced before the
Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-IX, Ernakulam on the next day
itself. Intimation has also been given to his live-in partner, that
petitioner was arrested for possession of MDMA and will be produced
before the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-IX, Ernakulam on
07-12-2024. The case diary also mentions that the directions of the
Supreme Court have been followed while arresting the accused. The
seizure mahazar, remand report and the custody memo mentions
that he is being arrested for possessing prohibited narcotic drugs.
From the records mentioned above apart from mentioning the
grounds for arrest in the custody memo which contains the signature
of the petitioner himself, the contemporaneous records reveal the
intimation of the grounds for arrest. The requirement of
communicating grounds for arrest has been satisfied and therefore
petitioner’s arrest cannot be held to be illegal.
B.A. No.7025/2025
29. Petitioner is the accused in crime No. 866 of 2024 of
Manjeshwar Police Station. He was arrested on 04-12-2024 for
allegedly possessing 72.73 grams of MDMA. Though there are
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
29
2025:KER:48864
references in the seizure mahazar and the remand report that the
accused was informed of the reasons for his arrest, there is nothing
to indicate that there was any communication of the grounds for
arrest to the petitioner. There is also nothing to indicate that his
relatives were informed of the grounds for arrest. Hence the
petitioner’s arrest was illegal.
B.A. No.6621/2025
30. Petitioner is the accused in crime No. 6 of 2024 of Excise
Range Office, Palakkad. He was arrested on 02-02-2024 for allegedly
possessing 32.5 kilograms of ganja. On a perusal of the records
relating to the arrest of the petitioner, there is nothing to indicate
that there was any communication to him or his relatives of the
grounds for arrest. Except for a reference to the provision of law in
the arrest memo and arrest intimation, there is nothing to indicate
that the grounds for his arrest were informed to him. The arrest of
the petitioner is thus illegal due to the failure to communicate the
grounds for arrest as required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution
of India as well as section 52(1) of the NDPS Act.
B.A. No.7266/2025
31. Petitioner is the accused in crime No. 98 of 2025 of
Ernakulam Central Police Station. He was arrested on 25-01-2025 for
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
30
2025:KER:48864
allegedly possessing 25.900 kilograms of ganja. He hails from West
Bengal. On a perusal of the records relating to the arrest of the
petitioner, there is a specific communication given to the petitioner in
Hindi that he is being arrested for violating the provisions of NDPS
Act. The arrest memo only refers to the provision of law. The above
documents cannot be regarded as sufficient to treat them as
effectively communicating the grounds for arrest. There is also
nothing to indicate that there was any communication of the grounds
for arrest to his relatives. The arrest of the petitioner is thus illegal
due to the failure to communicate the grounds for arrest.
32. In the result, B.A. No. 7162 of 2025 and B.A. No. 6989
of 2025 are dismissed while B.A. No. 6366 of 2025, B.A. No. 6676 of
2025, B.A. No. 6677 of 2025, B.A. No. 6996 of 2025, B.A. No. 7025
of 2025, B.A. No. 6621 of 2025 and B.A. No. 7266 of 2025 are
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.
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
31
2025:KER:48864
(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.
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
vps
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
32
2025:KER:48864
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 6366/2025
PETITIONER’S/S’ ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR,
ALLEGEDLY PREPARED BY THE DETECTING
OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ALLEGED SEIZURE OF
THE CONTRABAND ARTICLE.
ANNEXURE B A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2024
IN CRL. M.C.NO. 6775/2024 ON THE FILE OF
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD.
ANNEXURE C A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.04.2025
IN CRI. M.C.NO. 1226/2025 ON THE FILE OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-II, PALAKKAD.
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
33
2025:KER:48864
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 6621/2025
PETITIONER’S/S’ ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12-12-2024 IN
BAIL APPL.8990/2024 ON HIGH COURT.
ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE CRIME AND OCCURRENCE
REPORT IN CRIME NO. 06 OF 2024 OF EXCISE
RANGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD.
ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO. 06
OF 2024 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD.
ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.04.2025 IN
C.M.P. NO. 2085/2025 IN SC NO. 445 OF 2024
PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-II) PALAKKAD.
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
34
2025:KER:48864
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 6676/2025
PETITIONER’S/S’ ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE-I A TRUE COPY OF THE FSL REPORT.
ANNEXURE-II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
15.03.2025 IN CMP NO. 905/2025 PASSED BY
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-I,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
35
2025:KER:48864
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 6677/2025
PETITIONER'S/S' ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE-I A TRUE COPY OF THE FSL REPORT.
ANNEXURE-II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
24.02.2025 IN CMP NO. 679/2025 PASSED BY
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-I,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
36
2025:KER:48864
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 6989/2025
PETITIONER'S/S' ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
IN CRIME NO. 1224/2024 OF PALARIVATTOM
POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE SEARCH LIST CUM SEIZURE
MAHAZAR IN CRIME NO. 1224/2024 OF
PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL APPLICATION NUMBERED
AS CRL.M.C. NO.1122/2025 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS,
ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.04.2025 IN
CRL.M.C. NO.1122/2025 PASSED BY THE COURT
OF SESSIONS; ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE 5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.03.2025 IN
B.A NO. 3345/2025 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE 6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.05.2025 IN
B.A NO. 5704/2025 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT.
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
37
2025:KER:48864
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 6996/2025
PETITIONER’S/S’ ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.05.2025 IN
BAIL APPL.5468/2025 ON HIGH COURT.
ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.05.2025 IN
B.A. NO. 5468/2025 PASSED BY THIS
HONOURABLE COURT.
ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
IN CRIME NO. 484 OF 2024 OF KUNNAMANGALAM
POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR IN CRIME
NO. 484 OF 2024 OF KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE
STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
ANNEXURE 5 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.
484 OF 2024 OF KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE
STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
ANNEXURE 6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.03.2025 IN
CRL.M.P. NO. 364/2025 IN SC NO. 28/2025
PASSED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS ACT
CASES) VATAKARA.
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
38
2025:KER:48864
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 7025/2025
PETITIONER’S/S’ ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
IN CRIME NO. 866/2024 OF MANJESWAR POLICE
STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT.
ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL APPLICATION NUMBERED
AS CRL.M.C. NO.755/2025 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS,
KASARGOD.
ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.05.2025 IN
CRL.M.C. NO.755/2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF
SESSIONS; KASARGOD.
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
39
2025:KER:48864
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 7162/2025
PETITIONER’S/S’ ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2025 IN
BAIL APPL.3851/2025 ON HIGH COURT.
ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
IN CRIME NO. 906 OF 2024 OF SULTHAN BATHERY
POLICE STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR IN CRIME
NO. 906 OF 2024 OF SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE
STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL APPLICATION NUMBERED
AS CRL.M.P. NO.435/2025 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE COURT OF SPECIAL
JUDGE NDPS ACT CASES/ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-II, KALPETTA, WAYANAD.
ANNEXURE 5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.05.2025 IN
CRL.M.P. NO.435/2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF
SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS ACT CASES/ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-II, KALPETTA, WAYANAD.
Bail Appl. Nos.6366, 6621,
6676, 6677, 6989, 6996,
7025, 7162, & 7266/2025
40
2025:KER:48864
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 7266/2025
PETITIONER’S/S’ ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO. 98/2025
OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION DATED
26.01.2025.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED
25/01/2025
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C.NO. 1189
OF 2025 DATED ON 09/05/2025, HONOURABLE
SESSION (VACATION COURT), ERNAKULAM.