The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 6872 of 2025 (In the matter of application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023). Rajendra Naik & Another … Petitioners -versus- State of Odisha … Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. S.N. Mishra, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. R.B. Mishra, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & DATE OF JUDGMENT:11.11.2025 (ORAL) G. Satapathy, J. 1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Th. Rampur P.S. Case No.04 of 2025 corresponding to C.T. Case No.05 of 2025 pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C., Th. Rampur, Kalahandi, for commission of offences punishable U/S.103(1) of BNS, on the allegation of committing murder of deceased Laxman Majhi. BLAPL No. 6872 of 2025 Page 1 of 12 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr.S.N.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.R.B.Mishra, learned Addl. PP in the matter and perused the record. 3. It is undisputed that the petitioners by way of a bail application have raised a point before the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi that since the grounds of arrest was not communicated to the petitioners, their arrest being vitiated and illegal, the subsequent remand of the petitioners to custody is also illegal and thereby, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail, but the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi while passing the order refusing to grant bail to the petitioners has observed that the decisions in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Another; 2025 (1) OLR (SC) 464 & Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi); 2024 (2) Crimes 293 (SC) are not applicable to the petitioners in this case, since the accused persons in the relied on cases were not involved in any heinous offences, however, the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi without discussing the ratio that has been BLAPL No. 6872 of 2025 Page 2 of 12 laid down by the Apex Court in these two decisions has made this observation. 4. Be that as it may, in Vihaan Kumar (supra), the Apex Court has observed the following at paragraphs-28 & 31:- “28. Therefore, in the facts of the case, we have no hesitation in holding that the arrest of the appellant was rendered illegal on account of to communicate the grounds of arrest to the appellant as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution. failure The Single learned Judge, 31. unfortunately, has equated information given regarding the appellant’s arrest with the grounds of arrest. The observation that the allegation of non-supply of the grounds of arrest made by the appellant is a bald allegation is completely uncalled for. All courts, including the High Court, have a duty to uphold fundamental rights. Once a violation of a fundamental right under Article 22(1) was alleged, it was the duty of the High Court to go into the said contention and decide in one way or the other. When a violation of Article 22(1) is alleged with respect to grounds of arrest, there can be possible two contentions raised: (a) that the arrested person was not informed of the grounds of arrest, or (b) purported information of grounds of arrest does not contain any ground of arrest. As far as the first contention is concerned, the person who is arrested can discharge his burden by simply alleging that grounds of arrest were not informed to him. If such an allegation is made in the pleadings, the entire burden is on the arresting agency or BLAPL No. 6872 of 2025 Page 3 of 12 the State to satisfy the court that effective compliance was made with the requirement of Article 22(1). Therefore, the view taken by the High Court is completely erroneous.” 4.1. Similarly, in Prabir Purkayastha (supra), the Apex Court in Paragraphs-20, 22, 25, 26, 30, 49 & 50 has observed as follows:- any other offences has “20. Resultantly, there is no doubt in the mind of the Court that any person arrested for allegation of commission of offences under the provisions of UAPA or for that matter a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest. The purpose of informing to the arrested person the grounds of arrest is salutary and sacrosanct inasmuch as, this information would be the only effective means for the arrested person to consult his Advocate; oppose the police custody remand and to seek bail. Any other interpretation would tantamount to diluting the sanctity of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 22. The right to be informed about the grounds of arrest flows from Article 22(1) of India and any the Constitution of fundamental right infringement of this would vitiate the process of arrest and remand. Mere fact that a charge sheet has been filed in the matter, would not validate the illegality and the unconstitutionality committed at the time of arresting the accused and the grant of initial police custody remand to the accused. BLAPL No. 6872 of 2025 Page 4 of 12 25. A Constitution Bench of this Court examined in detail the scheme of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India in the case of Harikisan vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 1962 SCC Online SC 117 and held that the communication of the grounds of detention to the detenue in writing and in a language which he understands is imperative and essential to provide an opportunity to detenue of making an the effective detention such communication is not made, the order of detention would stand vitiated as the guarantee under Article 22(5) of the Constitution was violated. The relevant Para is extracted herein below: against case representation and in 7. …………..clause (5) of Article 22 requires that the grounds of his detention should be made available to the detenue as soon as may be, and that the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the Order should also be afforded to him. In order that the detenue should have that opportunity, it is not sufficient that he has been physically delivered the means of knowledge with which to make his representation. In order that the detenue should be in a position effectively to make his representation against the Order, he should have knowledge of the grounds of detention, which are in the nature of the charge against him kinds of setting out the prejudicial authorities attribute to him. Communication, in this context, must, therefore, mean imparting acts which the BLAPL No. 6872 of 2025 Page 5 of 12 the to sufficient detenue knowledge of all the grounds on which the Order of Detention is based. In this case the grounds are several, and are based on numerous speeches said to have been made by the appellant himself on different occasions and different dates. Naturally, therefore, any oral translation or explanation given by the police officer serving those on the detenue would not amount to communication, in this context, must mean bringing home to the detenue effective knowledge of the facts and circumstances on which the Order of Detention is based. (Emphasis supplied) 26. Further, this Court in the case of Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel vs. Union of India and Others, (1981) 2 SCC 427 laid down that the grounds of detention must be communicated to the detenue in writing in a language which he understands and if the grounds are the only constitutional mandate of Article 22(5) is infringed. The relevant Para is extracted hereunder: explained, verbally It means the basic “20 ..... “Communicate” is a strong that sufficient word. facts knowledge of constituting the "grounds” should be imparted effectively and fully to the detenue in writing in a language which he understands. The whole purpose of the "ground" to the detenue is to enable him to make a purposeful and effective the "grounds" are only verbally explained to the detenue and representation. If communicating BLAPL No. 6872 of 2025 Page 6 of 12 nothing in writing is left with him, in a language which he understands, then that purpose is the constitutional mandate in Article 22(5) is infringed....... (Emphasis supplied). served, and not that requirement in 30. Hence, we have no hesitation reiterating to the communicate the grounds of arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested in connection with an offence or a person placed under preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any this situation. Noncompliance and constitutional statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be. requirement of for proper 49. It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that there is a significant difference in the phrase for arrest’ and „reasons ’grounds of arrest’. 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; 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. 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. the grounds of arrest Simultaneously, BLAPL No. 6872 of 2025 Page 7 of 12 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. 50. From the detailed analysis made above, there is no hesitation in the mind of the Court to reach to a conclusion that the copy of the remand application in the purported exercise of communication of the grounds of arrest in writing was not provided to the accused appellant or his counsel before passing of the order of remand dated 4th October, 2023 which vitiates the arrest and subsequent remand of the appellant.” 4.2. In a most recent decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.; MANU/SC/ 1492/2025, it has been held at Paragraph-4.2 by the Apex Court that while dealing with the mode of communicating the grounds of arrest so as to serve the intended purpose of the constitutional mandate, the language used in Article 22(1) and 22(5) regarding communication of the grounds is identical and therefore the interpretation of Article 22(5) shall ipso facto apply to Article 22(1). The grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing, in order to attend the true intended purpose of Article 22(1). Reference at this BLAPL No. 6872 of 2025 Page 8 of 12 stage may be made to the Constitution Bench Judgment of this Court in Harikisan (supra) wherein while dealing with the Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India in the context of the right of a detainee to be made aware of the grounds of arrest, it has been held that the same should be furnished in a language which he can understand and in a script which he can read. 5. In view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the decisions referred to above, it can be well considered that the grounds of arrest is not an empty- formality and communication of it to the detainee/arrestee must be strictly complied with by communicating the same to the arrestee in the language he understands. On a bare perusal of the copy of arrest memos produced in this case by the learned State counsel under Annexures- A & D, which are in printed forms of arrest memo, the grounds of arrest have been left blank under column No.10. It is, therefore, very clear that the petitioners have not been communicated with the grounds of arrest, but the provision of Sec.47 of BNS which deals with communication of grounds of arrest and of right to bail, BLAPL No. 6872 of 2025 Page 9 of 12 makes it mandatory for the Arresting Officer to communicate the grounds of arrest to the arrestee which has already been reiterated and reaffirmed by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to above and, therefore, the Arresting Officer in this case should have communicated the grounds of arrest to the arrestees- cum-petitioners to the language they understand. It is also undisputed that when a statute prescribes the mode of exercise of the provision contained in it, such provision has to be done in that manner in letter and spirit and not otherwise and deviating the mandate of the statute would have other ramifications. In this regard, the view in the famous decision in Nazir Ahmed vs. King Emperor; AIR 1936 PC 253 is quite apt, since it had been held therein by the privy-council that if a thing is to be done in a particular way, then the same has to be done in that way and not otherwise. 6. In the above context of violation of 22(1) of the Constitution of India, this Court considers it profitable to refer to the decision in the case of Directorate of Enforcement vrs. Subash Sharma; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 240, wherein in a somewhat BLAPL No. 6872 of 2025 Page 10 of 12 similar situation, the Apex Court at Paragraph-8 has held as under:- “8. Once a Court, while dealing with a bail application, finds that the fundamental rights of the accused under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India have been violated while arresting the accused or after arresting him, it is the duty of the Court dealing with the bail application to release the accused on bail. The reason is that the arrest in such cases stands vitiated. It is the duty of every rights the Court guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.” fundamental to uphold 7. In view of the above facts and taking into consideration the facts that the grounds of arrest has not been communicated to the petitioners, the arrest of the petitioners stands vitiated and thereby, the subsequent remand of the petitioners to custody is also illegal and vitiated and the only consequence left thereon is to grant bail to the petitioners to obviate the non-compliance of mandate of the Constitutional guarantee provided in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 8. Hence, the bail application of the each of the Petitioners stands allowed and the Petitioners are BLAPL No. 6872 of 2025 Page 11 of 12 allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each only with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it. 9. of. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 11th day of November, 2025/S.Sasmal Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA SASMAL Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 14-Nov-2025 19:27:05 BLAPL No. 6872 of 2025 Page 12 of 12