Mere Non-Mentioning Of Crime Number Insignificant When Notices Under BNSS Contain Ground For Arrest & Contraband Quantity: Kerala High Court

The application before the High Court was filed by the applicant accused under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail.

The Single Bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath held, “The learned counsel for the applicant argued that, although separate grounds for arrest were provided to the applicant and her relative, they do not disclose the crime number in connection with which the applicant was arrested. It is true that those notices do not mention the crime number. However, all other relevant particulars, such as the grounds for arrest, the quantity of the contraband seized, and the sections under which the applicant is charged, are mentioned therein. In cases under the NDPS Act, if the notices under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS contain specific grounds and reasons for arrest as well as the quantity of the contraband seized, the mere nonmentioning of the crime number is insignificant. Thus, there has been proper communication of the grounds of arrest to the applicant and her relative.”

Advocate Anupama Subramanian represented the Petitioner, while Public Prosecutor M.P. Prasanth represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The applicant was found in possession of 2.27 kgs of hashish oil for sale in contravention of the NDPS Act and Rules. It was alleged that the said hashish oil was supplied by the second accused to the applicant.

Reasoning

Considering that the quantity involved was commercial, the Bench held that the jurisdiction of the Court to grant bail is circumscribed by the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. “The said provision makes bail in matters which involve commercial quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance conditional on what is often called the “twin test”: first, the Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the application, and second, when opposed, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail”, it explained.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench held that the accusation against the applicant was very serious, and it prima facie showed a premeditated criminal act on her part. The contraband was seized from the house where the applicant and her husband (second accused) resided. Considering that the seizure mahazar as well as the First Information Report showed that the contraband was kept in the bedroom of the applicant, the Bench found no substantial or probable cause for believing that the applicant was not guilty of the offences charged.

“The applicant has not been able to point out the existence of any such facts or circumstances as are sufficient to justify recording a finding that she is not guilty of the offences charged so as to get over the rigour of Section 37”, it added.

Referring to the judgment in Yazin S. v. State of Kerala (2025), the Bench reiterated that for cases under the NDPS Act, the specification of the quantity of the contraband seized is mandatory for the effective communication of the grounds of arrest. The Bench stated that, except for the crime number, all other relevant particulars were mentioned in the notices.

Considering that there had been proper communication of the grounds of arrest to the applicant as well as her relative and taking note of the nature of the crime, the gravity of the offence, the complicity of the applicant in it, and the facts and circumstances, the Bench dismissed the bail application.

Cause Title: Sreelakshmy v. State Of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:44974)

Click here to read/download Order