The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards during arrest is non-negotiable, even in heinous offences under the POCSO Act. In a significant ruling, the Court granted bail to an accused on the sole ground that authorities failed to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing to his relatives, thereby violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Manzoor P.M., aged 42, is the sole accused in Crime No. 59/2026 registered at Hill Palace Police Station, Ernakulam. He is charged under Sections 4(2) read with 3(a), (c), (d), 8 read with 7, and 12 read with 11(i)(ii) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The prosecution alleges that on 21.01.2026 at approximately 6:30 p.m., at his rented residence in Irumbanam, he enticed a 14-year-old male victim with the promise of a mobile phone and committed aggravated sexual assault.
Key Facts
- The alleged offence occurred on 21.01.2026 at the petitioner’s rented house in Irumbanam, Ernakulam
- The victim, a minor male, lodged a complaint leading to registration of Crime No. 59/2026
- The petitioner was arrested on 23.01.2026 and has remained in custody since then
- Annexure 4 to the bail application contains a notice purportedly issued under Section 47 and 35(1)(b)(ii) of BNSS informing the accused of grounds of arrest
- Annexure 5 is the arrest intimation report, indicating notification to a relative
- However, no written communication of grounds of arrest was produced to the petitioner’s family members
Procedural History
- 21.01.2026: Alleged offence committed
- 22.01.2026: First Information Report (FIR) registered at Hill Palace Police Station
- 23.01.2026: Petitioner arrested and remanded to judicial custody
- 05.06.2026: Bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS before the High Court of Kerala
- 05.06.2026: Court heard arguments and delivered judgment on the same day
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel contended that while the grounds of arrest may have been communicated to the accused orally, there was no written communication to his near relatives as mandated by law. They relied on Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Alvin Riby v. State of Kerala to argue that failure to notify relatives in writing renders the arrest illegal and unconstitutional.
For the Respondent
The Senior Public Prosecutor conceded that written communication to relatives was not produced in the record but argued that the arrest was lawful as the accused was informed of the grounds orally and the investigation was in its early stages. He submitted that the gravity of the offence under POCSO warranted denial of bail.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought regular bail on the ground that his arrest was illegal due to non-compliance with Section 47 of BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution. He requested release on reasonable bail conditions without prejudice to the investigation.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing to the arrestee’s near relatives renders the arrest illegal under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, even if the arrestee himself was informed.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra to establish that communication of grounds of arrest is mandatory under Article 22(1). They emphasized that Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228) explicitly held that such communication must extend to family members to make the constitutional right meaningful. They further cited Alvin Riby v. State of Kerala (2025 KER 67079), a binding precedent of this Court, which held that non-communication to relatives invalidates the arrest. The counsel argued that the absence of written notice to relatives was not a mere procedural lapse but a substantive violation undermining the accused’s right to legal recourse.
For the Respondent
The Senior Public Prosecutor acknowledged the absence of documentary proof of written communication to relatives but contended that the arrest was lawful because the accused was orally informed of the grounds. He argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Kasireddy Upender Reddy was not intended to invalidate arrests where the accused was informed, and that strict compliance should not override the interests of justice in serious sexual offences against children. He urged the Court to consider the gravity of the allegations and deny bail on that basis.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by affirming that Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of BNSS impose a mandatory obligation to inform the arrestee of the grounds of arrest. It further held that the Supreme Court in Kasireddy Upender Reddy had elevated this requirement beyond mere notice to the accused, emphasizing that the purpose of the provision is to enable the arrestee’s family to secure legal aid and arrange for bail. The Court observed:
"The mandate of Article 22(1) is rendered meaningless if the family is kept in the dark. Without written communication to relatives, the arrestee’s right to consult a lawyer, to apply for bail, or to challenge the legality of detention is effectively neutered."
The Court noted that while the prosecution produced Annexure 4 and 5, these documents did not establish that written notice was given to the petitioner’s family. The arrest intimation report merely indicated that a relative was informed, without specifying the mode or content. The Court held that oral communication to relatives, even if alleged, cannot substitute the statutory requirement of written notice.
The Court distinguished the gravity of the offence from the legality of arrest, stating that procedural violations cannot be excused merely because the charge is serious. It reiterated that Alvin Riby v. State of Kerala was directly on point and binding. The Court concluded that the arrest was illegal and the petitioner’s continued detention was unlawful.
The Verdict
The bail application was allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail upon executing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate. He shall cooperate fully with the investigation, appear before the investigating officer every Saturday between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., and shall not leave the State of Kerala without prior permission. He shall not tamper with evidence or contact witnesses. The order shall remain in force until further orders of the trial court.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Written Notice to Relatives Is Mandatory
- Practitioners must now insist on production of written communication to relatives as a prerequisite for lawful arrest in all cases
- Any arrest where such documentation is absent is vulnerable to challenge under Article 22(1) and BNSS Section 47
- Police records must include signed acknowledgments from relatives or certified postal receipts
Gravity of Offence Does Not Override Procedural Compliance
- Courts cannot deny bail on the basis of offence severity when the arrest itself is illegal
- Bail applications under BNSS Section 483 must be decided on legality of detention first, irrespective of the nature of the charge
- Prosecution cannot rely on the seriousness of POCSO offences to justify procedural lapses
Precedent Now Binding Across Kerala
- Alvin Riby v. State of Kerala has been reaffirmed and strengthened by this judgment
- All subordinate courts in Kerala must now treat non-communication to relatives as a fatal flaw in arrest procedure
- Defence counsel should routinely file applications under Section 47 BNSS to demand production of written notice to relatives at the earliest opportunity
