Bishal Singh v. State of Orissa

: Mr. A.S. Biswal, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. M.R. Patra, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:27.07.2026(ORAL) G. Satapathy, J.

This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Boipariguda PS Case No.35 of 2024 corresponding to TR Case No.13 of 2024 pending in the file of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jeypore, Dist-Koraput, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of NDPS Act, the main allegation of transporting 420Kgs 540Grams of Contraband Ganja in a Bolero Pick-Up BLAPL No.2003 of 2026 Page 1 of 6 Vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-02-N-7985, along with co-accused persons.

Heard, Mr. Amit Sujat Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Patra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record.

The sole ground under which the petitioner has sought for relief of bail is for non-compliance of Section 47 of BNSS r/w Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which provides for supply of grounds of arrest to the arrestee immediate after the arrest, otherwise, the arrestee shall not be detained in custody, but fact remains in this case is that the petitioner was arrested on 07.02.2024 and, thereafter, the petitioner has not only get numerous opportunities to raise such plea before the remanding Court as well as before this Court on earlier three occasions, however, the petitioner has not taken such plea and he took the plea before the learned trial Court in moving his recent bail application, which was disposed of on 07.02.2026. No doubt, the purpose and objective of informing the grounds of BLAPL No.2003 of 2026 Page 2 of 6 arrest is to safeguard the arrestee from illegal arrest and make him aware of the allegation levelled against him, it is nowhere stated that the petitioner was not aware of the accusation or allegation levelled against him, but his sole plea that he was not served with grounds of arrest for which his arrest and remand have been vitiated. In a situation like this, two points emerges; one is total non-compliance and the other one is inadequate/defective compliance of Sec. 47 of BNSS. This Court by way of a detail order dated

22.05.2026 passed in BLAPL No.10846 of 2025 and other two bail applications has clearly stated in paragraph-7 total non-compliance of such provision is impermissible, but in this case, the Arresting Officer by way of an affidavit has stated inter- alia the following in paragraph-5:-

5. That it is humbly submitted that as prima-facie case was made out against the accused persons U/s.20(b)(ii)C & 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Act, the accused person was arrested on 7.2.2024 at 2 PM by the Arresting Officer by explaining him the ground of arrest in his own language orally and prepared the arrest memo in which the accused/petitioner put his signature in BLAPL No.2003 of 2026 Page 3 of 6 Column-8 of the Arrest Memo. Thereafter, the accused person was also forwarded to the Court of the leamed District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Koraput at Jeypore on the same day. Copies of Forwarding Report and Arrest Memo are annexed herewith as Annexure-A Series.

Annexure-A to this affidavit is the Arrest Memo of the arrestee, which not only discloses the offences, but also the circumstances of arrest and such Arrest Memo is signed by the petitioner and counter- signed by the Arresting Officer. Had there been total non-compliance of Section 47 of BNSS r/w Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, the petitioner would have raised such plea before the remanding Court at the time of production and subsequently thereafter, but the petitioner has never claimed any prejudice and it is for the first time, the petitioner has raised such plea before the learned trial Court and this Court after a gap of two years.

Even otherwise, communication of grounds of arrest to the arrestee in writing may apply prospectively to the arrest on and from the date of BLAPL No.2003 of 2026 Page 4 of 6 pronouncement of judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah Vrs. State of Maharashtra; (2026) 1 SCC 500, which was delivered on 06.11.2025, but the petitioner herein was arrested much prior to 06.11.2025. This Court, however, considers it proper to reiterate the relevant observations of the Apex Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) at paragraph-68, which is extracted as under: - binding “68. We are cognizant that there existed no consistent requirement mandating written communication of the grounds of arrest for all the offences. Holding as above, in our view, would ensure implementation of the constitutional rights provided to an arrestee as engrafted under Article 22 of the Constitution of India in an effective manner. Such clarity on obligation would avoid uncertainty in the administration of criminal justice. The ends of fairness and legal discipline therefore demand that this procedure as affirmed above shall govern arrests “henceforth”.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance and taking into account the law laid down by the Apex Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) and the provision of law for communicating the grounds of arrest to the arrestee in writing be made applicable BLAPL No.2003 of 2026 Page 5 of 6 prospectively to the arrest after 06.11.2025 as held by the Apex Court and keeping in view the other circumstances on record in entirety, this Court does not find the plea of the petitioner to be worthy of acceptance for grant of bail. Hence, the plea merits no consideration. No other ground is canvassed for grant of bail.

In the result, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the learned Court in seisin over the matter. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 27th day of July, 2026/Subhasmita BLAPL No.2003 of 2026 Page 6 of 6