Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case

“There Is a Subtle but Significant Difference Between ‘Reasons for Arrest’ and ‘Grounds of Arrest’”, In a significant ruling on constitutional safeguards during arrest, the Kerala High Court upheld the arrest and remand of an accused in the sensational Sabarimala Sreekovil gold misappropriation case.

Justice A. Badharudeen held that the statutory and constitutional requirements under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and Sections 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 were duly complied with. The Court ruled that the written notices served upon the petitioner contained specific, personal allegations detailing his role in the alleged conspiracy and misappropriation of gold, thereby satisfying the mandate laid down by the Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha, Vihaan Kumar, and Mihir Rajesh Shah.

The writ petition challenging the legality of arrest and remand was dismissed.

Alleged Conspiracy to Strip Gold from Sabarimala Sreekovil

The petitioner, Pankaj Bhandari, was arrayed as Accused No.12 in Crime No.3700/2025 and Accused No.9 in Crime No.3701/2025 registered by the Crime Branch, Kollam. The allegations relate to a conspiracy to misappropriate gold cladding from Dwarapalaka plates and door frame artefacts of the Sabarimala Sreekovil belonging to the Travancore Devaswom Board.

According to the prosecution, the first accused submitted applications offering to gold-plate temple artefacts. The articles were allegedly handed over and transported to “Smart Creations” at Chennai, owned by the petitioner. It was alleged that the original gold cladding was stripped and misappropriated, causing unlawful pecuniary loss to the Devaswom Board and wrongful gain to the accused.

The petitioner was arrested on 19.12.2025 and remanded the same night. He challenged the arrest alleging violation of constitutional safeguards, non-supply of proper grounds of arrest, failure to inform relatives, denial of legal consultation, and procedural irregularities during remand.

“Grounds of Arrest Would Invariably Be Personal to the Accused”

The core issue before the Court was whether the written notices (Exts.P13 and P15) supplied to the petitioner constituted valid “grounds of arrest” or were merely cyclostyled “reasons for arrest”.

The Court referred extensively to Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), where the Supreme Court held:

“There is a significant difference in the phrase ‘reasons for arrest’ and ‘grounds of arrest’… The ‘grounds of arrest’ would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’ which are general in nature.”

After reproducing the contents of Exts.P13 and P15, the High Court found that the notices specifically narrated the petitioner’s alleged role in the conspiracy, his ownership of the Chennai firm, the stripping of gold cladding, and the resulting pecuniary loss to the Travancore Devaswom Board.

The Court held that these were not generic investigative justifications but contained detailed factual allegations enabling the petitioner to understand the accusations and frame his defence.

Thus, the Court rejected the argument that the notices were mechanical or cyclostyled.

Communication to “Friend” Under Section 48 BNSS – Staff Member Held Sufficient

Another challenge was that grounds of arrest were not furnished to a relative or nominated person as mandated under Section 48 of the BNSS, analogous to Section 50A CrPC.

The prosecution had served copies of the arrest notice on one Sri Rajasekharan, who accompanied the petitioner from Chennai.

The petitioner argued that he was neither a relative nor a nominated person.

The Court reasoned that the petitioner had travelled from Chennai to Kerala accompanied by Rajasekharan. In such circumstances, he could not be treated as a stranger and would at least fall within the expression “friend” for the purpose of statutory compliance.

The subsequent email intimation to the petitioner’s wife did not invalidate the earlier compliance. The Court held that the mandate of informing a friend or associate had been satisfied.

Non-Supply of Remand Report in Malayalam Not Fatal

The petitioner argued that the remand application, prepared in Malayalam, was not supplied to him at the time of remand and that it contained different grounds.

The Court observed that while the remand report was in Malayalam, the written grounds of arrest were separately supplied in English, a language known to the petitioner.

Since the grounds had already been furnished in writing before production, non-supply of the Malayalam remand report did not vitiate the arrest.

The Court distinguished Prabir Purkayastha, noting that in that case the grounds were not supplied at all, whereas in the present case they were clearly communicated in writing.

Right to Legal Representation – No Violation Found

The petitioner contended that he was denied legal consultation and was unrepresented at the time of remand conducted at 10:00 p.m.

The Court noted that the Investigating Officer had informed Advocate Satheesh, chosen by the petitioner, telephonically about the arrest and proposed production. Though the production occurred approximately two hours later than the time initially conveyed, the counsel was informed and aware.

The Court held that when the counsel of choice is informed, the obligation to provide legal aid does not arise. The delay due to medical examination and travel from Thiruvananthapuram to Kollam was not sufficient to render the arrest illegal.

The Court observed that the only anomaly was a two-hour delay in production, which by itself could not invalidate an otherwise lawful arrest.

Necessity and Justification of Arrest

Relying on Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., the petitioner argued that arrest must be justified by necessity.

The Court, however, noted that the allegations involved criminal conspiracy, breach of trust, forgery, and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act concerning gold belonging to a major temple institution. The grounds disclosed material indicating the petitioner’s role and complicity.

Thus, the arrest was not mechanical or routine.

No Violation of Articles 21 or 22(1)

Summarising the law, the Court reiterated that informing the grounds of arrest is “not a mere procedural formality but flows from personal liberty.” However, on facts, it found that:

The grounds of arrest were communicated in writing in English.
Copies were served upon the petitioner and his accompanying associate.
Counsel of choice was informed telephonically.
The petitioner was produced before the Special Court the same night.

Finding no constitutional or statutory infraction, the Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the arrest and remand.

The ruling is a crucial exposition on arrest jurisprudence under the newly enacted BNSS. It reinforces the Supreme Court’s distinction between “reasons” and “grounds” of arrest while clarifying that detailed factual narration in writing is sufficient compliance.

At the same time, it underscores that procedural safeguards must be meaningful but cannot be stretched to invalidate arrests where substantial compliance is demonstrated.

Date of Decision: 13/02/2026