K.A. ASHOKAN vs STATE OF KERALA

2026:KER:19646
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TH
THURSDAY, THE 5 DAY OF MARCH 2026/14TH PHALGUNA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 221 OF 2026
CRIME NO.38/2026 OF CHITTAR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.02.2026 IN CRL.MP(COMPLAINT)
NO.1 OF 2026 OF DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
K.A. ASHOKAN
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. AYYAPPAN, KOLLAMMAVUKUDIYIL HOUSE
NERIYAMANGALAM PO, NERIYAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686693
BY ADVS.
SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP
SHRI.SIVA SURESH
SMT.B.SREEDEVI
SMT.ATHIRA VIJAYAN
SHRI.VYSHNAV S. NAIR
SMT.AKSHARA RAVI
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/VICTIM:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
PATHANAMTHITTA THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
SRI.RENJIT GEORGE, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.02.2026,
THE COURT ON 05.03.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CRL.A NO. 221 OF 2026
2
2026:KER:19646
CR
JUDGMENT
th
Dated this the 5 day of March, 2026
Order dated 11.02.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.1/2026 on the files
of the Special Court for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as
“the SC/ST (POA) Act”, for short) cases, Pathanamthitta,
arising out of crime No.38/2026 of Chittur Police Station, is
under challenge in this appeal filed under Section 14A of the
SC/ST (POA) Act at the instance of the sole accused.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the
appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor on
27.02.2026. Perused the verdict under challenge and the
relevant records placed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. On 26.02.2026, the defacto complainant appeared
in person and zealously opposed grant of regular bail to the
appellant on the submission that she had bitter lascivious

CRL.A NO. 221 OF 2026
3
2026:KER:19646
experience from this appellant, even prior to this occurrence,
and that one Senior Officer had also filed complaint against
the appellant before the Internal Committee for sexual abuse.
Apart from that, another staff member also suffered similarly.
4. Here, the prosecution alleges commission of
offences punishable under Sections 74, 75(2) and 79 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred as ‘BNS’
for short) as well as under Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and
3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act by the accused. The
prosecution case is that, the accused, who has been working
as the Deputy Range Officer, Kochukoickal Forest Station,
and who is not a member of either the scheduled caste or the
scheduled tribe community, sexually assaulted the defacto
complainant, a member of the scheduled caste community,
who has been working as a Beat Forest Officer at the office of
the Deputy Range Officer, Kochukoickal, at about 13.30 hours
on 04.02.2026 at the mess hall of the said office. The specific

CRL.A NO. 221 OF 2026
4
2026:KER:19646
allegation is that, the accused caught hold of the defacto
complainant and sexually abused her.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that
the appellant is innocent and that the allegations have been
made to disarm him from performing his duties, under him,
where the defacto complainant has been working as a Beat
Forest Officer. It is also submitted that the defacto complainant
raised these allegations since she has been reluctant to do her
works under the appellant as directed by him. Thus, raising
plea of innocence, highlighting the custody of the appellant
from 05.02.2026 and the progress of the investigation, the
learned counsel for the appellant pressed for grant of regular
bail.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed grant of
bail to the appellant, highlighting the seriousness of the
offences and the premature stage of the investigation. He
further submitted that premature release of the appellant

CRL.A NO. 221 OF 2026
5
2026:KER:19646
would be fatal to the investigation and the same also would go
against the victim, since he has been working in a higher
position as Deputy Range Forest Officer, where the victim also
has been working.
7. On perusal of the First Information Statement given
by the defacto complainant as on 04.02.2026, at about 16.30
hours, it is stated that the defacto complainant has been
working as a Beat Forest Officer. While performing her duties
at the office of the Deputy Range Forest Officer, Kochukoickal,
on 04.02.2026, she was invited by one Amina madam to have
lunch at the mess. Since there was no power supply during
the relevant time, two Beat Forest Officers were taking food at
the sit-out. Amina madam was engaged in serving food. The
defacto complainant engaged in supplying curries. At this
juncture, the accused, Sri.K.A.Ashokan (Deputy Range Forest
Officer), came to the mess and without attempting to have the
food, he approached her and caught hold of her private parts,

CRL.A NO. 221 OF 2026
6
2026:KER:19646
taking advantage of the non-availability of light for want of
electric supply, while she was engaged in serving curries
using a torch light. She stated further that the occurrence was
witnessed by Amina madam and she also questioned the
same.
8. In the First Information Statement, it has been
further stated that similar experience was faced by Soumya, a
Beat Forest Officer, at the instance of the accused. It is further
stated that when he was engaged in field work and performing
duties at the office, the accused used to abuse her with double
meaning and used to look at her lasciviously.
9. On perusal of the First Information Statement, the
allegations necessary to constitute the offences alleged are
well made out, prima facie and the absolute innocence
canvassed by the appellant's counsel is found to be
unacceptable.
10. In this case, even though non-information of the

CRL.A NO. 221 OF 2026
7
2026:KER:19646
grounds of arrest also has been placed as a reason to grant
bail, since the prosecution records justified compliance of the
pre-arrest formalities, the learned counsel for the appellant not
pressed for the challenge on this ground. However, it is
noticed that, because of failure on the part of the Investigating
Officers to intimate the grounds of arrest to the accused, or to
the relatives, friends, or a nominee of the accused in writing
and for other reasons in the matter of non-compliance of pre-
arrest requirements, many accused have been released after
arrest though they got involved in very serious crimes, finding
their arrest as illegal. It is perceivable that some Investigating
Officers are failing to comply with the pre-arrest formalities for
want of proper understanding of law and some among them
are doing it intentionally to help the accused to get bail even in
very serious cases with ulterior motives. This Court had
occasion to deal with cases registered against the
Investigating Officers, who demanded and accepted bribe for

CRL.A NO. 221 OF 2026
8
2026:KER:19646
doing such things to help the accused to escape, and were
punished under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore,
the matter is to be seriously taken note of to address the issue
with a view to safeguard the interest of the justice and to
protect the rule of law.
11. In view of the above, there shall be a specific
direction to all criminal courts in the State to ensure that,
before considering remand application and ordering remand,
compliance with the pre-arrest formalities must be ensured, as
mandated in the decisions reported in Prabir Purkayastha v.
State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 (“Prabir
Purkayastha”), Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 5
SCC 799 (“Vihaan Kumar”), Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of
Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine 256 (“Mihir Rajesh Shah”)
and Joginder Kumar v. State of UP & Ors., 1994 4 SCC 260
(“Joginder Kumar”), which are encapsulated as under:
(1) If a person is arrested on a warrant, the grounds
for reasons for the arrest is the warrant itself; if the

CRL.A NO. 221 OF 2026
9
2026:KER:19646
warrant is read over to him, that is sufficient
compliance with the requirement that he should be
informed of the grounds for his arrest.
(2) If a person is arrested without a warrant, he must
be told why he has been arrested. If he is arrested
for committing an offence, he must be told that he
has committed a certain offence for which he
would be placed on trial. In order to inform him
that he has committed a certain offence, he must
be told of the acts done by him which amounts to
the offence. He must be informed of the precise
acts done by him for which he would be tried;
informing him merely of the law applicable to such
acts would not be enough.
(3) The purpose of inserting Section 50A of the CrPC,
making it obligatory on the person making arrest to
inform about the arrest to the friends, relatives or
persons nominated by the arrested person, is to
ensure that they would able to take immediate and
prompt actions to secure the release of the
arrested person as permissible under the law. The
arrested person, because of his detention, may
not have immediate and easy access to the legal
process for securing his release, which would

CRL.A NO. 221 OF 2026
10
2026:KER:19646
otherwise be available to the friends, relatives and
such nominated persons by way of engaging
lawyers, briefing them to secure release of the
detained person on bail at the earliest. Therefore,
the purpose of communicating the grounds of
arrest to the detenue, and in addition to his
relatives as mentioned above is not merely a
formality but to enable the detained person to
know the reasons for his arrest but also to provide
the necessary opportunity to him through his
relatives, friends or nominated persons to secure
his release at the earliest possible opportunity for
actualising the fundamental right to liberty and life
as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Hence, the requirement of communicating the
grounds of arrest in writing is not only to the
arrested person, but also to the friends, relatives
or such other person as may be disclosed or
nominated by the arrested person, so as to make
the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution
meaningful and effective failing which, such arrest
may be rendered illegal.
(4) The requirement of informing the arrested person
the grounds of arrest, in the light of and under

CRL.A NO. 221 OF 2026
11
2026:KER:19646
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, is not a
mere formality but a mandatory binding
constitutional safeguard which has been included
in Part III of the Constitution under the head of
Fundamental Rights. Thus, if a person is not
informed of the grounds of his arrest as soon as
may be, it would amount to the violation of his
fundamental rights thereby curtailing his right to
life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, rendering the arrest illegal.
(5) There is a significant difference in the phrases
“reasons for arrest” and “grounds of arrest” and it
can be held that the “reasons for arrest” as
indicated in the arrest memo are purely formal
parameters viz. to prevent the accused person
from committing any further offence; for proper
investigation of the offence; to prevent the
accused person from causing the evidence of the
offence to disappear or tampering with such
evidence in any manner; to prevent the arrested
person for making inducement, threat or promise
to any person acquainted with the facts of the
case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such
facts to the court or to the investigating officer.

CRL.A NO. 221 OF 2026
12
2026:KER:19646
These reasons would commonly apply to any
person arrested on charge of a crime, whereas the
“grounds of arrest” would be required to contain all
such details in hand of the investigating officer
which necessitated the arrest of the accused.
Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest informed in
writing must convey to the arrested accused all
basic facts on which he was being arrested so as
to provide him an opportunity of defending himself
against custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus,
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.
(6) Following the ratio of the decision in Manubhai Ratilal
Patel v. State of Gujarat reported in [(2013) 1 SCC
314], it is obligatory on the part of the Magistrate/the
Judge concerned to satisfy himself whether the
materials placed before him justify the remand.
(7) The arrested person must be well equipped with the
information not only about his arrest, but also the
reasons and grounds thereof, prior to his production
before the Magistrate, so as to enable him to
effectively defend himself and oppose police and
judicial custody and even press for bail.
(8) As held in the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, dated

CRL.A NO. 221 OF 2026
13
2026:KER:19646
05.02.2026 in Crl.A.No.701/2026, it is incumbent upon
the trial Courts dealing with criminal proceedings,
faced with such situations, to inform the accused of
their right to legal representation and their entitlement
to be represented by legal aid counsel in the event
they cannot afford a counsel. The trial Courts shall
record the offer made to the accused in this regard,
the response of the accused to such offer and also the
action taken thereupon in their orders, before
commencing examination of the witnesses, This
procedure requires to be adopted and put in practice
scrupulously.
12. It is specifically ordered that before ordering remand,
the learned Magistrate or the learned Special Judge shall get an
endorsement in the proceedings sheet stating that the above
pre-arrest formalities have been complied with and the accused
has no objection in this regard, on personally satisfying
compliance of the same and the same shall be recorded in the
remand order. In the event of non-compliance, the Magistrate or
the Special Judge, as the case may be, must ensure compliance
of the formalities at the helm of the Investigating Officer and

CRL.A NO. 221 OF 2026
14
2026:KER:19646
remand to be considered only after ensuring compliance of the
formalities. Therefore, the Magistrate or the Special Judge, as
the case may be, on noting deliberate intention on the part of the
arresting/Investigating Officer in non-complying with the pre-
arrest requirements, shall recommend disciplinary proceedings
against the arresting/Investigating Officer, without fail .
13. Coming back, taking note of the progress of
investigation and the status of the accused as a first time
offender, I am inclined to set aside the order of the learned
Special Judge, rejecting regular bail to the accused.
14. In the result, the criminal appeal stands allowed and
the order impugned stands set aside. The appellant is enlarged
on regular bail on the following conditions:
i. The appellant shall be released on bail on his executing
bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), with two
solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Special Court concerned.
ii. The appellant shall not intimidate the witnesses or tamper
with evidence. He shall co-operate with the investigation
and shall be available for interrogation.

CRL.A NO. 221 OF 2026
15
2026:KER:19646
iii. The appellant also shall appear before the Investigating
Officer as and when directed.
iv. The appellant shall not directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person, including the
defacto complainant, acquainted with the facts of this
case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to
any police officer.
v. The appellant shall not disturb the defacto complainant in
any manner during the currency of bail hereby granted, if
any such event reported or came to the notice of this
Court, the same alone is a reason to cancel the bail
hereby granted at the instance of the Special Court or by
this Court.
vi. The appellant shall not involve in any other offence
during the currency of bail and any such event,
if reported or came to the notice
of this court, the same shall be a reason to cancel the bail
hereby granted at the instance of the Special Court or by
this Court.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to
all the criminal courts in the State of Kerala for strict
compliance, without fail, to avoid challenge against arrest on
the ground of non-compliance, as mandated by the Hon’ble

CRL.A NO. 221 OF 2026
16
2026:KER:19646
Supreme Court in the decisions referred hereinabove.
Registry is further directed to forward a copy of this
judgment to the Director General of Police,
Thiruvananthapuram, with request to communicate the same
to all Investigating Officers/Station House Officers to take note
of the seriousness of compliance with the pre-arrest
formalities and the consequences of its non-compliance to
avoid non-compliance of the pre-arrest formalities in future.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
nkr