Arrestee Who Refuses To Accept Grounds Of Arrest Can't Seek Bail Solely On Plea Of Non-Communication: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that bail cannot be granted on the sole ground of non-intimation of grounds of arrest when the arrestee refuses to accept the grounds of arrest when it's intimated to him. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 363]Justice A. Badharudeen, made the observation in a bail application seeking regular bail. The prosecution case is that the accused, while working as the Dy.S.P of...
The Kerala High Court has held that bail cannot be granted on the sole ground of non-intimation of grounds of arrest when the arrestee refuses to accept the grounds of arrest when it's intimated to him. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 363]
Justice A. Badharudeen, made the observation in a bail application seeking regular bail.
The prosecution case is that the accused, while working as the Dy.S.P of Cherthala demanded an amount of Rs. 2 lakh from the defacto complainant as illegal gratification for release of four vehicles which are alleged to be used for dumping waste. The petitioner further allegedly demanded monthly allowance from the de facto complainant.
The de facto complainant informed the matter to the Vigilance Unit, Alappuzha which laid a trap and caught the petitioner in the act.
In his bail plea, the petitioner argued that the grounds for arrest were not communicated to him as mandated in the decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah v State of Maharashtra [2025 KHC 6915].
The prosecution submitted that even though the petitioner was arrested and necessary documents including arrest memo, remand application, entrustment mahazar, recovery mahazar etc were prepared, the petitioner was reluctant to accept the same and refused to put his signature acknowledging the receipt.
The Court examined the prosecution records and noted that in the remand report it is stated that the accused purposefully refused to put his signature in the records of the arrest.
“On perusal of the remand report, contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that grounds of arrest were not served upon the petitioner cannot be accepted, since as submitted by the the learned Public Prosecutor and as discernible from the prosecution records that when grounds of arrest were intimated to him, he refused to accept the same…grant of bail canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the sole ground of non-intimation of grounds of arrest would not sustain in the eyes of law and the same is dispelled.” Court noted.
Nonetheless, the Court noted that Petitioner has been in custody from 27 May, 2026. Stating that further custody for the purpose of investigation was not necessary, the Court granted him bail on conditions.
Case Title: Anil Kumar T v State of Kerala
Case No: B.A. 3208/ 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 363
Counsel for Petitioner: R. ANil, A. Rajesh, Ananth Krishna K.S, George Vinci Jose
Counsel for Respondent: Rekhs S (Sr. PP)