Kerala High Court
Vijesh vs State Of Kerala on 14 August, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
B.A.No.7853 of 2025 1
2025:KER:61526
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 7853 OF 2025
CRIME NO.46/2024 OF Kollam E.E, Kollam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMC NO.956 OF 2025 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - VI, KOLLAM/ V
ADDL.MACT/ RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY
PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
VIJESH, AGED 33 YEARS
S/O VAMADEVAN, VIJESH BHAVANAM,
MEMANA, OACHIRA, KARUNAGAPPALLY,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690526
BY ADVS.
SRI.SAM ISAAC POTHIYIL
SMT.S.SURAJA
SHRI.MUHAMMED SUHAIR C.A
SHRI.ABHILASH C.V.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
B.A.No.7853 of 2025 2
2025:KER:61526
2 EXCISE ENFORCEMENT AND ANTI NARCOTIC SPECIAL SQUAD
KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691001
SRI. PRASANTH M.P., PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.7853 of 2025 3
2025:KER:61526
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
B.A.No.7853 of 2025
...................................................
Dated this the 14th day of August, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’).
2. Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.46 of 2024 of
the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Squad, Kollam,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 22(c),
22(b)(ii)(A), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 [for brevity, ‘NDPS Act‘].
3. According to the prosecution, on 15.10.2024 at about
3 p.m., accused were found in possession of 104.622 grams MDMA
and 106.538 grams of ganja, kept in a scooter bearing registration
No.KL-31D-8701 and thereby committed the offences alleged.
Petitioner was arrested on 15.10.2024 and he has been in custody
since then.
4. Heard Sri.Sam Isaac Pothiyil, the learned Counsel for
B.A.No.7853 of 2025 4
2025:KER:61526
the petitioner as well as Sri.Prasanth M.P., the learned Public
Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner has been in custody since 15.10.2024. It was
submitted that the grounds for arrest were not communicated to
the petitioner or his relatives at the time of his arrest.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application and submitted that the grounds for arrest were
communicated to the petitioner at the time of his arrest. It was
also submitted that since the contraband seized from the
petitioner was a commercial quantity, the rigour under Section 37
of NDPS Act will apply and hence petitioner ought not to be
released on bail.
7. Though prima facie there are materials on record to
connect the petitioner with the crime, since petitioner has raised
the question of absence of communication of the grounds for his
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
B.A.No.7853 of 2025 5
2025:KER:61526
(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
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 case diary it is noticed that the
arrest memo contains the signature and fingerprint of the
petitioner and there is specific reference to the grounds for his
arrest. In the arrest intimation also, conveyed on the date of his
arrest, there is specific mention about the grounds for the arrest.
In view of the above grounds for arrest having been
B.A.No.7853 of 2025 6
2025:KER:61526
effectively communicated to the petitioner as well as to his close
friend, I am of the view that there is no merit in this bail
application.
Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
sp/18/08/2025
B.A.No.7853 of 2025 7
2025:KER:61526
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 7853/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.04.2025
PASSED BY THE VITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS COURT KOLLAM IN CRL.M.C NO
956/2025