1. The petitioners are accused 2 and 4 in Crime No. 709/2025 registered by the Pudukkadu Police Station, Thrissur, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 (b) (ii) (C), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

2. The crux of the prosecution case is that on 23.05.2025, at 05:15 am, the Detecting Officer found the accused 1 to 4 in conscious possession of 125 kilograms of ganja, which was being transported in a lorry bearing registration no. KL-42-X-3218 in contravention to the provisions of the Act.

3. The petitioner has contended in the Crl.M.C that they are totally innocent of the allegations levelled against them. There are no material to substantiate their culpability in the crime. The Investigating Officer had not furnished the grounds of arrest to the petitioner. Accordingly, they filed B.A. No. 10181/2025 before this Court. By Annexure A2 order, this Court found that the Investigating Officer had failed to furnish the grounds of arrest and following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (AIR 2025 SC 1388) and the law laid down by this Court in Shahina v. State of Kerala (2025 KHC Online 706), this Court directed the Superintendent of District Jail, Viyyur, to release the petitioners immediately. As soon as the petitioners were released from jail, the Investigating Officer took the petitioners to the Pudukkad Police Station and arrested them. Although the petitioners filed an application for bail before the Court of Session, Thrissur, by Annexure A3 order, their application was dismissed. The arrest of petitioners is an infringement of their constitutional right guaranteed by Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, Annexure A3 order may be granted and the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions in the Crl.M.C and relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. The State Of Maharashtra, [2025 INSC 1288], to canvas the position that once the an accused is released and, thereafter, when the grounds of arrest are supplied to him, he can be rearrested only after setting forth the explanation for the non-supply thereof, and the magistrate has to decide the application after adhering to principles of natural justice. The learned counsel contends that none of the above principles were adhered to by the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the Crl.M.C. She submitted that, subsequent to the release of the petitioner as per Annexure A2 order, they were produced before the Jurisdictional Court, who in turn remanded the petitioners to the judicial custody. After that, the petitioners filed the bail application before the Court of Session. By Annexure A3 order, the learned Sessions Judge categorically found that there was no violation of the legal mandate under Section 47 of the BNSS or Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly the bail application was dismissed. The petitioners cannot challenge the said order through this Crl.M.C. The petitioners’ remedy is to either file a fresh application for bail in case there is any change of circumstances or file a fresh application for bail before this Court. There is no error in Annexure A3 order. Hence, the Crl.M.C may be dismissed.

7. By Annexure A2 order, this Court, on finding that the petitioners were not furnished with grounds of arrest, which is in violation of the law laid down in the Vihaan Kumar’s and Shahina’s cases (supra), directed the Superintendent of District Jail to release the petitioners forthwith. In the Mihir Rajesh Shah’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

                  “55. It goes without saying that if the above-said schedule for supplying the grounds of arrest in writing is not adhered to, the arrest will be rendered illegal, entitling the release of the arrestee. On such release, an application for remand or custody, if required, will be moved along with the reasons and necessity for the same, after the supply of the grounds of arrest in writing setting forth the explanation for nonsupply thereof within the above stipulated schedule. On receipt of such an application, the magistrate shall decide the same expeditiously and preferably within a week of submission thereof by adhering to the principles of natural justice.

                  56. In conclusion, it is held that:

                   i) The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes, including offences under IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023);

                  ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands;

                  iii) In case(s) where the arresting officer/person is unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it be so done orally. The said grounds be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the magistrate.

                  iv) In case of non-compliance with the above, the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal, and the person will be at liberty to be set free.”

8. Consequent to the directions of this Court, the Investigating Officer had produced the petitioners before the learned Sessions Judge after supplying them the grounds of arrest. Based on the above arrest memo, the learned Sessions Judge remanded the petitioner to judicial custody. After that the petitioners filed Crl.M.P. No. 5350/2025 to enlarge them on bail.

9. By Annexure A3 order, the learned Sessions Judge found that the Arresting Officer had complied with the legal mandate under Section 47 of the BNSS and Article 22 of the Constitution of India, and that there are reasonable grounds to hold that the petitioners have committed the offences and they are likely to commit the offences in the future if they are enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed.

10. The petitioners now contend that they were not furnished with the grounds of arrest and that they were not afforded an opportunity of being heard. I am unable to accept the said contention because the above contentions were raised before the learned Sessions Judge and were found against the petitioners. Therefore, I hold that the petitioners cannot re-agitate a concluded issue through this Crl.M.C. The said findings are binding on the petitioners. The Crl.M.C is devoid of any merits and is only liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I dismiss the Crl.M.C, but by reserving the right of the petitioners to work out their remedies in accordance with the law.