Page 1 of 76

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

BLAPL No.13860 of 2025

CNR No.ODHC010945452025

Bikram Panda @

Bikram Kumar Panda

..... Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha ..... Opposite Party

For Petitioner … Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija,

Senior Advocate along with

Mr. Subir Palit, Senior Advocate &

M/s. P.K. Dash, S.N. Das &

A. Acharya

For Opposite Party … Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak,

Additional Government Advocate.

Mr. B.K. Ragada,

Advocate for the Informant

----------------

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

__________________________________________________________

Date of hearing : 31.07.2026 :: Date of judgment : 31.08.2026

__________________________________________________________

A.K. Mohapatra, J.

1. The present bail application under Section 483 of the

B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the Petitioner Bikram Panda @

Page 2 of 76

Bikram Kumar Panda, a former member of the Odisha

Legislative Assembly, seeking regular bail in connection with

Baidyanathpur P.S Case No.518 of 2025, corresponding to G.R

Case No.2774 of 2025 for alleged commission of offences

punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2)(a), 111(2)(a), 238(a),

249(a) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”),

read with Sections 25(1)(a), 25(6) and 27(a) of the Arms Act,

1959 (“Arms Act”), currently pending before the learned 3

rd

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Berhampur as S.T. Case

No. 18 of 2026. Though this is a regular bail application, since it

involves applicability and interpretation of a crucial provisions of

the Constitution of India as well as the B.N.S.S., moreover,

considering the voluminous documents and case diary and the

matter was mentioned for relisting by the learned counsels for

rehearing of the matter on different points of law three was some

delay in delivering the judgment. Such delay in delivery of the

judgment is regretted by the Court, at the outset.

FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The crux of the facts forming the backbone of the present

case, as culled out from the FIR and the Chargesheet, is as

Page 3 of 76

follows; On the night of 06.10.2025 at about 10.00 PM, two

unknown assailants on a motorcycle waited near Kalyan Mandap

under Baidyanathpur P.S. limits, Berhampur, Ganjam, and shot

the deceased-Victim at close range by means of a pistol as he

was returning from his chamber to his residence at Baikuntha

Nagar. Upon hearing the gunshots, the family members of the

deceased-Victim and bystanders rushed to the spot, found the

deceased-Victim grievously injured, and immediately transported

him to M.K.C.G. Medical College & Hospital, Berhampur,

where the Medical Officer declared him brought dead. The cause

of death, as subsequently established, was haemorrhage and

shock resulting from the firearm injuries. Following such

incident, on the written complaint of one Purna Chandra Panda,

the younger brother of the deceased-Victim, the IIC,

Baidyanathpur P.S. registered Baidyanathpur P.S. Case No. 518

dated 07.10.2025 under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the BNS,

2023, read with Sections 25(1-B) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959,

against unknown accused persons and took up investigation.

Following the registration of the F.I.R, the SDPO, Berhampur

was directed to take charge of the investigation and an

Page 4 of 76

investigation team was constituted to assist, under the

supervision of the Superintendent of Police, Berhampur.

3. During investigation, the Investigating Officer examined

the spot along with the Scientific Team of RFSL, Berhampur,

seized clue materials, recorded statements of the complainant and

witnesses under Section 180 BNSS, and seized the motorcycle

used by the assailants and articles belonging to the deceased. The

eye-witnesses have also successfully identified some of the

accused persons in TI Parade. CCTV footage obtained from

cameras installed by Berhampur Municipal Corporation revealed

two suspects, both wearing white shirts, black pants, and helmets,

arriving and fleeing after the shooting on a motorcycle bearing a

fake registration number OD07K2278. Subsequent investigation

traced a suspicious UPI transaction of Rs. 9,500/- made through a

mobile recharge shop at Goilundi, Berhampur, to one Mithun

Kumar of Bihar, which led to a chain of digital evidence

comprising CDRs, IPDRs, SDRs, CAFs, mobile handset data,

and WhatsApp/application logs.

4. The investigation divulged several layers of conspiracy,

as detailed in the Chargesheet. It was revealed that the present

Page 5 of 76

Petitioner Bikram Panda (Ex-MLA) and one Pintu @

Sivashankar Dash (ex-Mayor), harboured deep-seated political,

personal and professional enmity with the deceased-Victim. The

I.O also identified one Madan Mohana Dalai and Malaya Kumar

Bisoyi, close associates of the Petitioner, who had engaged

middlemen Uma Shankar Bisoi and Jogendra Rauta @ Jogi to

arrange ‘supari’ killers from Bihar. It was discovered that one

Bipin Swain was engaged to source contract killers from Bihar,

namely Sishupal Kumar Paswan, Kundan Kumar, and

Simanchala Naik, who made multiple unsuccessful attempts to

shoot the deceased from 10.09.2025 to 14.09.2025. eventually,

two local criminals namely, Kurupati Bhuyan and Chintu

Pradhan were engaged and they ultimately executed the murder

plan to eliminate the deceased-Victim on 06.10.2025. The

Chargesheet also discloses that one Sunil Kumar Hota, Sunya

Chandra Das, and Kalu Charan Bhuyan, harboured the killers and

provided logistical support, while one Rajendra Kumar Sahu

dismantled and scrapped the motorcycle used in the offence.

5. All in, during investigation, a total of sixteen persons

were apprehended by the local Police. The present Petitioner was

Page 6 of 76

apprehended on 22.10.2025 at 12:00 midnight from his

residence. The Prosecution-State avers that grounds of arrest

were allegedly orally communicated in Odia and a written Memo

of Arrest was prepared with a ‘Grounds of Arrest’ column, which

the petitioner refused to sign, in the presence of two independent

witnesses namely, Badri Narayan Nayak, Advocate, and Chandra

Sekhar Gouda, Advocate who attested the Petitioner’s refusal.

The petitioner was formally placed under arrest at 3:30 AM on

22.10.2025 and, as alleged by the Prosecution, the father of the

Petitioner was telephonically informed about the arrest and the

grounds therefor, and when requested to receive copies of the

arrest documents, he also declined. The father of the Petitioner

additionally requested the police to collect medicines for the

petitioner. Accordingly, SI Dusmanta Kumar Pradhan visited the

Petitioner’s residence, collected the medicines, and

simultaneously communicated the grounds of arrest to the father

of the Petitioner. Afterwards, the accused-Petitioner was

forwarded on 22.10.2025 along with 11 other co-accused persons

to the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate

(SDJM), Berhampur, in compliance with Section 58 of the

Page 7 of 76

BNSS, 2023. The learned SDJM remanded all the accused

persons to judicial custody till 03.11.2025 in GR No. 2774 of

2025. The present Petitioner has been in judicial custody

continuously since 22.10.2025.

6. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed an application before

the learned SDJM, Berhampur, seeking release from custody on

the ground of alleged illegal arrest for non-supply of written

grounds of arrest. The said application/petition was rejected vide

order dated 14.11.2025, at Annexure-5. Thereafter, the Petitioner

moved a bail application before the learned District & Sessions

Judge, Ganjam at Berhampur, registered as B.A. No. 1309 of

2025. The hearing was subsequently transferred to the Court of

the learned 3

rd

Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur, who

rejected the bail application vide order dated 16.12.2025 on

several grounds mentioned therein, a copy of which is available

at Annexure-7. Finally, the Investigating Officer submitted the

Charge Sheet vide Baidyanathpur P.S. Charge Sheet No.1 dated

03.01.2026, keeping the investigation open in part, against all

sixteen accused persons under Sections 103(1), 109(1), 61(2)(a),

111(2)(a), 238(a), 249(a) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023, read with

Page 8 of 76

Sections 25(1)(a), 25(6) and 27(1) of the Arms Act, before the

learned SDJM, Berhampur and the learned SDJM, after taking

cognizance therein, supplied police papers under Section 230 of

the BNSS and committed the matter to the Court of Sessions.

7. At present, the case is pending before the learned 3

rd

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Berhampur as S.T. Case

No. 18 of 2026, at the stage of framing of charges. Being

aggrieved by the rejection of his bail application by the learned

Sessions Court, the present petitioner has preferred this petition

under Section 483 BNSS before this Court, seeking bail and a

declaration that his arrest was illegal.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER

8. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija and Mr. Subit Palit,

learned Senior Advocates along with Mr. Sailaza Nandan Das,

learned counsel, appearing for the Petitioner. At the very outset,

learned Senior Counsels for the Petitioner have stated before this

Court that from the very inception of his arrest, the Petitioner

was not served with written grounds of arrest by the arresting

officer. This, it is submitted, constitutes a flagrant violation of the

constitutional safeguards guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22(1)

Page 9 of 76

of the Constitution of India, as also the statutory mandates under

Sections 47, 48 and 62 of the BNSS, 2023. It is submitted that

the Memo of Arrest furnished to the petitioner only mentions in

the ‘Grounds of Arrest’ column “In the strength of above noted

case”, which is a wholly vague, non-specific, and constitutionally

inadequate statement that does not disclose the nature of the

accusations, the manner of the Petitioner’s alleged involvement,

or the specific acts attributed to him. Learned senior counsels

have contended that the FIR being registered against unknown

accused persons, the obligation on the I.O was all the more

heightened to provide specific, cogent grounds of arrest. To lead

further credence to their argument, the learned senior counsels

for the Petitioner have cited an earlier judgment of a coordinate

bench of this Court in Mrs. N. Ratnakumari v. State of Odisha

& Others, reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Ori 256, wherein this

Court, while interpreting a ground of arrest stated in a memo as

“as found involved in the above noted case”, held that such a

ground is inadequate for the purposes of Article 22(1) of the

Constitution read with Section 50 Cr.P.C. The ground of arrest in

Page 10 of 76

the present case being “In the strength of above noted case”, is, if

anything, even more vague and equally inadequate.

9. Drawing the attention of this Court to the fact that the

forwarding report (at Annexure-3), the learned senior counsels

contended that the report submitted by the I.O to the learned

SDJM at the time of forwarding nowhere discloses the supply of

written grounds of arrest to the petitioner. Similarly, the remand

order dated 22.10.2025 (at Annexure-4) is equally silent.

Moreover, the order dated 14.11.2025 (at Annexure-5), rejecting

the Petitioner’s application for release, contains not even a

whisper of the existence of written grounds of arrest furnished

exclusively to the Petitioner at the time of arrest. The learned

senior counsels have stated that the Prosecution did not even

claim compliance at the stage of the initial application before the

learned SDJM. Instead, the claim of compliance was first raised

only during the hearing of the bail application on 09.12.2025

before the learned Sessions Court, by relying upon entries in the

case diary prepared by the I.O., which can be very well be

construed as an act of afterthought which is liable to be treated

with suspicion.

Page 11 of 76

10. To further corroborate their stance, the learned senior

counsels for the Petitioner have placed reliance on Vihaan

Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another, reported in (2025) 5

SCC 799, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the

requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing

extends not only to the arrested person but also to his 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

the arrest may be rendered illegal. It was submitted that in the

present case, the father of the Petitioner was only verbally

informed of the fact of the arrest and no written grounds of arrest

were ever supplied to him. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Apex Court

in Vihaan Kumar (supra) has also cautioned that compliance

with Article 22(1) of the Constitution cannot be inferred solely

on the basis of a vague entry in the police diary. There must be a

contemporaneous record specifically recording what the grounds

of arrest were. No such independent contemporaneous document

exists in the present case beyond the case diary entries, which

first surfaced at the bail hearing stage.

Page 12 of 76

11. It was further urged by the learned senior counsels that

the mere refusal of the petitioner to sign the Memo of Arrest does

not and cannot absolve the police of their constitutional and

statutory obligation. It was stated that a person cannot be

deprived of a fundamental constitutional right merely because he

exercises another right, i.e. the right to refuse to sign a document

prepared by the authority arresting him. Learned senior counsels

for the Petitioner have contended that when an arrested person is

produced before a Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the

Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) of

the Constitution and other mandatory safeguards, as held in

Vihaan Kumar (supra), have been duly complied with. In the

present case however, both the Courts below have failed to

discharge this duty.

12. Additionally, the learned senior counsels for the

Petitioner also contend that the ‘Memo of Arrest’ furnished to

him was not in the prescribed format mandated under the Odisha

Information of Arrested Persons Rules, 2025, (hereinafter

“Rules, 2025”) framed by the State Government in exercise of

powers under Section 48(3) of the BNSS, 2023. It was contended

Page 13 of 76

that Section 62 of the BNSS clearly stipulates that no arrest shall

be made except in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS,

2023 or any other law for the time being in force. The Rules,

2025 prescribe a specific format, at Annexure-A to the Rules,

with a dedicated column for grounds of arrest, which was not

followed in the present case. Moreover, learned senior counsels

stated that, a conjoint reading of Sections 48 and 62 of BNSS,

2023 leads to the irresistible conclusion that the requirement is

mandatory and not merely directory, for it is settled law that

when a statute prescribes a particular thing to be done in a

particular manner, it must be done in that manner alone, or not at

all.

13. In this context, the learned senior counsels for the

Petitioner distinguished the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court

in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc., reported in 2025 SCC

OnLine SC 1072, relied upon by the Courts below and by the

prosecution, by drawing attention of this Court to the subsequent

order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 16.10.2025 in Ahmed

Mansoor & Others v. The State bearing Criminal Appeal No.

4505 of 2025, which expressly distinguished Sri Darshan

Page 14 of 76

(supra) on the ground that the said case dealt with cancellation of

bail where the charge sheet had been filed and grounds of

detention were served immediately, neither of which was the

situation in the present case. It was also submitted that under the

mandate of the D.K. Basu guidelines as affirmed by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, reported in

(1997) 1 SCC 416, copies of all documents including the Memo

of Arrest should be sent to the jurisdictional magistrate at the

time of forwarding of the accused. Since the written grounds of

arrest were never sent to the jurisdictional magistrate, learned

senior counsels stated that there has been a flagrant violation of

the said mandate and, that the learned Courts below ought to

have drawn an adverse inference against the police and in favour

of the Petitioner.

14. Next, the learned senior counsels have submitted that the

Courts below have erred in relying upon the confessional

statements of co-accused persons, specifically one Sunya Das

and Malaya Bisoi, as a basis for denying bail to the Petitioner. to

bolster their contention, the learned senior counsels have referred

to the observations in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of

Page 15 of 76

Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157,

wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the

confessional statements of co-accused persons cannot be taken

into consideration at the pre-trial stage while deciding a bail

application of an accused. In a similar vein, the learned senior

counsels have also relied on the orders of this Court in

Dolagobinda v. State of Odisha (BLAPL No. 7695 of 2022) and

Surendra Panda v. State of Odisha (BLAPL No. 1259 of 2020),

to the same effect.

15. Additionally, the learned senior counsels for the

Petitioner have challenged the reliance placed by the Sessions

Court on CDR (Call Detail Records) analysis as a ground for

denying bail. It has been submitted that CDR data merely

establishes contact between the petitioner and co-accused, a fact

which may have numerous innocent explanations, and does not,

in the absence of voice recordings, transcripts, or other

corroborating material, constitute sufficient basis for denying bail

at the pre-trial stage. To support such contention, the learned

senior counsels have placed reliance on the Hon’ble Supreme

Court pronouncement in M. Sambasiva Rao v. State of Andhra

Page 16 of 76

Pradesh, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1463, and on the

decision of the J&K High Court in Sareed Ahmed Ganie v.

Union of India, bearing Bail App No. 21 of 2025 disposed of on

18.10.2025, wherein it has been clearly observed that CDR

details showing mere contact between an accused and others,

without voice recordings, cannot by themselves suffice to sustain

a conviction or denial of bail.

16. Further, the learned senior counsels stated that the two

successive FIRs, Baidyanathpur P.S. Case No. 558 dated

03.11.2025 and Baidyanathpur P.S. Case No. 568 dated

09.11.2025, have been registered against the Petitioner, after his

arrest, for allegedly threatening of the son of the deceased. It was

submitted that the Petitioner has been in continuous judicial

custody since 22.10.2025, has not been taken on remand by the

police in those cases, and the Prosecution has produced no

material from those investigations connecting the petitioner to

those acts. Therefore, it was submitted that the adverse inference

drawn against the petitioner on the basis of such unconnected

FIRs is highly unwarranted and not backed by any credible

material on record.

Page 17 of 76

17. On the question of motive and enmity, the learned senior

counsels for the Petitioner, relying on Nand Lal v. State of

Chhattisgarh, reported in (2023) 10 SCC 470, specifically para

27 thereof, have contended that previous enmity can be viewed

as a double-edged sword which might provide motive on one

hand, but also present the likelihood of false implication on the

other hand. It was further contended that motive alone, without

corroborating evidence, is wholly insufficient to sustain

conviction or denial of bail since circumstantial evidence merely

create a suspicion of motive (paragraphs 15 to 19 and 23 of State

of U.P. v. Dr. Sanjay Singh, reported in 1994 Supp (2) SCC

707). With respect to the charge of Organised Crime under

Section 111 BNS, the learned senior counsels have referred to

decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Suraj Singh @

Noni v. State of Punjab, bearing CRM-M-42577 of 2024, to urge

that in order to establish an element of an ‘organised crime’ the

prosecution is required to furnish legally admissible prima facie

evidence establishing a prima facie case and justifying custodial

interrogation. It was submitted that no such evidence has been

put forth against the Petitioner.

Page 18 of 76

18. Lastly, the learned senior counsels appearing on behalf of

the Petitioner submit before this Court that the Petitioner, who is

aged 54 years, has deep roots in the community and no history of

flight risk. Any further continuation of his custody in the face of

multiple illegalities vitiates his detention and violates his

invaluable fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the

Constitution read with the legal rights under Sections 47, 48 and

62 of the BNSS. In such view of the matter, it was prayed that

the Petitioner be released on bail and his arrest be declared illegal

and, the impugned rejection order dated 14.11.2025 refusing to

release the Petitioner on bail be set aside.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PROSECUTION-STATE

19. Heard Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, Additional Government

Advocate and perused the Objection Affidavit wherein the

learned AGA appearing for the State and the Investigating

Officer (SDPO, Berhampur Town) have strongly opposed the

bail application of the Petitioner. The Prosecution-State, at the

very outset, has strenuously disputed the allegation of non-supply

of written grounds of arrest. It was submitted that the

Investigating Officer duly prepared written grounds of arrest on

Page 19 of 76

22.10.2025, i.e. the very date of arrest, and the same was read out

to and communicated orally in Odia to the Petitioner before the

formal arrest at 3.30 AM. It was stated that the Petitioner wilfully

and deliberately refused to sign the Memo of Arrest, the grounds

of arrest, and all other connected papers, in the presence of two

independent witnesses, namely Badri Narayan Nayak (an

Advocate), and Chandra Sekhar Gouda (Advocate). The learned

AGA contended that a person cannot be permitted to take

advantage of his own wrongs. The Petitioner’s deliberate refusal

to sign the duly constituted Memo of Arrest cannot be

weaponized as a procedural shield to invalidate an otherwise

lawful arrest.

20. The Prosecution-State further submitted that the grounds

of arrest of the Petitioner were communicated to the family of the

Petitioner as well. In fact, the father of the Petitioner, Kishore

Chandra Panda, was informed telephonically about the arrest and

the grounds thereof and was requested to receive copies of the

arrest memo and grounds of arrest, which he also refused. The

father did, however, request the I.O. to send police personnel to

collect medicines for the petitioner. Accordingly, SI Dusmanta

Page 20 of 76

Kumar Pradhan personally visited the residence and

communicated the arrest and the grounds thereof to the father of

the Petitioner. it is the stance of the Prosecution-State that the

aforesaid conduct unequivocally satisfies the mandate of Section

48(1) of BNSS. The learned AGA further contended that all other

fifteen accused persons arrested in the case have signed the

memo of arrest and grounds of arrest without objection, which

entirely negates the Petitioner’s claim of non-preparation of these

documents. Moreover, there was no occasion for the I.O to

manufacture these documents belatedly since all the accused

persons were already in judicial custody by then. Therefore, the

Petitioner’s stand is factually untenable.

21. In rebuttal to the Petitioner’s contention that his rights

under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India, as also

the statutory mandates under Sections 47, 48 and 62 of the

BNSS, 2023 have been violated due to the conduct of the

Prosecution, the learned AGA, relying on State of Karnataka v.

Sri Darshan Etc., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1072, has

urged that the mere absence of written grounds does not ipso

facto render an arrest illegal, unless there is demonstrable

Page 21 of 76

prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend. The petitioner

was legally represented from the very inception, has filed

detailed bail applications at multiple levels, and has suffered no

demonstrable prejudice. Therefore, the learned Sessions Court

has rightly arrived at such conclusion and rejected the bail

application of the Petitioner.

22. In order to demonstrate the strength of the Prosecution’s

Case, the learned AGA submits that the prosecution case is built

upon a formidable edifice of multiple independent strands of

evidence pointing to the Petitioner as a prime conspirator. It was

contended that the Supplementary Case Diary of Inspector

Swarnalata Patra (Cyber PS, Berhampur) reveals that the

Petitioner was in regular telephonic and WhatsApp contact with

co-accused Pintu @ Shiva Shankar Das on 05.10.2025 (one day

before the murder), 02.10.2025 (four days before the murder),

and 11.09.2025 (during the reconnaissance period of the supari

killers). All the accused persons, including the Petitioner, used

secret mobile communication applications to keep the planning

covert. It was stated that the CCTV footage identifies the

suspects’ movements in the area. Moreover, the CDRs establish a

Page 22 of 76

communication network linking the petitioner to co-accused

Madan Dalei, Malaya Bisoi, Uma Shankar Bisoi, Jogendra Rout,

and others. Learned AGA submitted that a colour-coded

communication flow chart has been provided in the CD which

establishes the layered connectivity between the killers and top-

level conspirators.

23. With regard to oral evidences and witness statements, it

has been contended by the learned AGA that the statement of

multiple witnesses recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the

BNSS establish motive, previous conduct, subsequent conduct,

extra-judicial confessions of co-accused, and conspiracy.

Referring to such witness statements in the CD, the learned AGA

has submitted that one Lalit Mohan Mangaraj has deposed to the

Petitioner, Malaya Bisoi, and Madan Dalei expressing their intent

to kill the deceased-Victim. Similarly, one Susanta Kumar Samal

has deposed to the deceased’s apprehension of death at the hands

of the Petitioner, which has been corroborated by the deposition

of one Smt. Susmita Panda (wife of deceased). In fact, one Smt.

Pragnya Panda has also deposed to the motive arising from

blackmailing by the deceased regarding the Petitioner’s illicit

Page 23 of 76

affair. Likewise, the learned AGA has contended that statements

under section 180 of the BNSS by Muna Sethy, Muna Das and

Rudra Kumar Sethy reveal the extrajudicial confessions by

certain unknown accused persons, Madan dalei and Pintu Das

respectively.

24. Thereafter, it was stated on behalf of the Prosecution-

State that eye-witness Naka Kiran Kumar has correctly identified

the actual killers Kurupati Bhuyan and Chintu Pradhan in the TI

Parade. In fact, other eye-witnesses have also identified the

accused persons engaged in planning conspiracy at Alakapuri

and Brahmanagar, Berhampur. Reference has also been made to

confessional statements of several other witnesses, as available in

the CD, to demonstrate that several key discoveries, viz. role of

Bikram Panda, spot of occurrence, place of concealment of the

weapon, mobile phones used in communication between accused

persons etc., have been in the case which establish the guilt of the

Petitioner and exhibit a clear case against his release on bail.

25. Next, the learned AGA has highlighted that the Petitioner

has criminal antecedents, Berhampur Town PS Case No. 37 of

2009 under Section 188 IPC; and Nimakhandi PS Case No. 150

Page 24 of 76

of 2024 under Sections 294/323/341/427/506/34 IPC read with

Sections 25/26 of the Arms Act. He submitted that post-arrest,

two FIRs have been registered, Baidyanathpur PS Case Nos. 558

and 568 of 2025, against the Petitioner based on reports of

threatening calls received by the family of the deceased by

associates of the Petitioner, evidencing a continuing criminal

design.

26. Additionally, in support of his contentions, the learned

AGA has also relied the following judgments on the principles

governing bail: State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc., reported

in 2025 INSC 979; Kalyan Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu

Yadav, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528 (specifically paragraphs 19

and 22); Aashish Yadav v. Yashpal & Others, reported in 2025

SCC OnLine SC 1100 (specifically paragraphs 16 and 20); and

Kum. Shubha @ Shubhashankar v. State of Karnataka,

reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1426 (specifically paragraphs

60, 87, 92, 97 and 98) and CBI v. Amarnath Tripathy, reported

in (2005) 8 SCC 528 (specifically paragraphs 13, 14, 18, 33 and

34).

Page 25 of 76

27. Lastly, the Prosecution-State has emphasised that the

Petitioner is a former MLA with deep political roots,

considerable financial and muscle power, and a demonstrated

network of associates. Given these circumstances, the very real

danger of witness tampering and interference with the trial

cannot be discounted. Therefore, it was contended that granting

the Petitioner bail at this stage would send a deeply negative

message to society and fundamentally undermine public

confidence in the administration of criminal justice. As such, the

Prosecution-State, via the learned AGA, has prayed for the

regular bail application of the Petitioner to be dismissed

forthwith.

CONTENTIONS OF THE INFORMANT

28. Heard Mr. B. K. Ragada learned counsel for the

Informant. The learned Advocate appearing for the informant,

Purna Chandra Panda (younger brother of the deceased), has

filed a separate Objection Affidavit and Memo of Citations

strongly opposing the bail application. The learned counsel for

the Informant reiterates the factual matrix of the present case and

emphasises that the Petitioner, who stands as the prime

Page 26 of 76

conspirator at the apex of a seven-layered criminal conspiracy,

wielded his considerable influence, money, and muscle power to

engage career criminals and contract killers to execute the

deceased-Victim, who is a sitting member of the Odisha State

Bar Council, for a combination of political, personal, and

professional reasons. The learned counsel has describe the

incident as a premeditated assassination of the gravest kind,

executed with remarkable criminal sophistication involving

interstate coordination, clandestine digital communications,

preliminary reconnaissance, and eventual successful execution by

local killers.

29. The learned Counsel for the Informant has, at the outset,

attempted to place before this Court the legal framework

governing bail, by referring to the comprehensive principles laid

down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Dhankad v. State

of NCT of Delhi and Anr., reported in 2025 INSC 974, which

sets out that the Court is required to balance the personal liberty

of the accused against the gravity of the offence, the broader

societal implications of release, the need to preserve the integrity

of the trial process, and the influence wielded by the accused in

Page 27 of 76

society. The relevant parameters as enumerated therein include

the nature and seriousness of the charge, the strength of the prima

facie case, the likelihood of the accused fleeing or tampering

with evidence/witnesses, the interest in ensuring the trial

proceeds without obstruction, and the societal implications of

release of the accused-Petitioner.

30. With regard to the contention of the Petitioner that his

valuable right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution has been

violated, the informant adopts and supplements the contentions

of the Prosecution-State. Additionally, it has been stated by the

learned counsel for the Informant that grounds of arrest of the

Petitioner were duly prepared contemporaneously and that the

Petitioner’s deliberate refusal to sign such document is a

stratagem which cannot be raised as a defence. It was also

submitted that the requirement of written communication as per

the dictum in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra,

reported in (2026) 1 SCC 500, operates prospectively as held by

a judgement of a coordinate bench of this Court in Akash Kori @

Kasua v. State of Odisha, bearing BLAPL No. 11721 of 2025,

and does not apply to an arrest made on 22.10.2025. In support,

Page 28 of 76

the learned counsel has referred to a judgement of the Delhi High

Court in Karan Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, bearing

W.P.(Crl) No.4203 of 2025 decided on 23.01.2026.

31. The learned counsel for the informant has underscored

the danger of witness intimidation in the present case by noting

that two FIRs have been registered based on unanimous

threatening calls received by the family of the deceased. The

learned counsel, in this respect, has placed reliance on Ashok

Dhankad (supra), specifically Para 24, for the proposition that

the Court cannot lose sight of the influence an accused wields in

society when considering bail, particularly where allegations of

pressurising witnesses have been made and witnesses have

themselves apprehended threat to their lives. The informant also

draws attention to the principle that criminal conspiracy is

seldom proved by direct evidence and is legitimately inferred

from conduct, communications, meeting of minds, and

surrounding circumstances, relying on E.K. Chandrasenan v.

State of Kerala, reported in (1995) 2 SCC 99. He has submitted

that the digital evidence, comprising CDRs, IPDRs, CCTV,

mobile handset data, and communication flow charts form a

Page 29 of 76

continuous, unbroken chain connecting the Petitioner to the

conspiracy and to the actual incident.

32. Next, the learned counsel has relied on Kasireddy

Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, reported

in 2025 INSC 768, for the proposition that the law does not

require grounds of arrest to enumerate every piece of

incriminating evidence. The grounds must merely give a broad

idea of the accusations levelled, no more and no less. It has been

contended that the arrest memo, which discloses the FIR number,

police station, and the substantive offences charged, is more than

sufficient to enable the Petitioner to understand the broad basis of

his arrest. The learned counsel for the Informant, relying on

Sunil Kumar v. State of Bihar, bearing 2022 INSC 99,

submitted that procedural compliance must be judged in a

holistic manner and in light of the totality of circumstances. If the

Petitioner’s case is viewed from this angle, it would appear that

there has been sufficient and material compliance with the

procedural requirement so that no question of prejudice to the

accused-Petitioner would arise.

Page 30 of 76

33. It has been urged on behalf of the Informant that grant of

bail to the prime conspirator at this stage, when the trial has not

even commenced and the Prosecution’s witnesses are exposed to

his influence, would fundamentally undermine public confidence

in the justice delivery system. The learned counsel for the

Informant has cited Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan

Khan & Anr., reported in 1987 (2) SCC 684, to advance the

proposition that the interests of the family of the deceased, who

feel helpless and believe there is no justice, and the collective

interest of the community must also be taken into account at the

bail stage. In such view of the matter, and relying upon a catena

of judgements produced before this Court by means of a memo

of citations, the Informant, via the learned counsel, has

vehemently opposed the present regular bail application of the

Petitioner.

ANALYSIS

34. After hearing the learned Senior Counsels appearing the

Petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the Informant, the

learned Additional Government Advocate for the Prosecution-

State and on a close scrutiny of the written note of submissions

Page 31 of 76

submitted by the respective parties in the present case, this Court

prima facie observed that the Petitioner being aggrieved by order

dated 16.12.2025, at Annexure-7, passed in B.A. No.1309 of

2025 by the 3

rd

Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur, has

approached this Court under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 with a

prayer to release him on regular bail by holding that his arrest is

in complete disregard to the principle enumerated in Article

22(1) of the Constitution of India read with Section 47, 48 and 62

of the BNSS, 2023 after setting aside the impugned order dated

16.12.2025 at Annexure-7. On a wholesome analysis of the

entire prosecution case, this Court is of the prima facie view that

the entire case of the prosecution against the present Petitioner is

based on circumstantial evidence. Moreover, the prosecution has

alleged that the present Petitioner is a party to the criminal

conspiracy which has resulted in the homicide of the

deceased. The Accused-Petitioner, on the other hand, while

assailing the impugned order at Annexure-7 on the ground that

there exists no ground to detain him further in custody, has also

challenged his detention and his arrest by the local police as

Page 32 of 76

violative of Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India read

with Sections 47, 48 and 62 of the BNSS, 2023.

35. Much emphasis was led by the learned Senior Counsels

representing the Petitioner on the ground that the arrest of the

Petitioner is in violation of Article 21 and 22(1) of the

Constitution of India read with Sections 47, 48 and 62 of the

BNSS, 2023. The main plank of argument of the learned Senior

Counsels representing the Petitioner is that in violation of the

abovenoted specific provisions of both the Constitution as well as

BNSS, the Petitioner was not communicated the grounds of

arrest as is required under the aforesaid provisions. Along with

the aforesaid grounds on merit, the Petitioner has also taken a

stance that the statutory provision with regard to communication

of the ground of arrest has been vitiated by the local police while

arresting the Petitioner. Therefore, this Court while examining

the validity and legality of order dated 16.12.2025, at Annexure-

7, is required to consider as to whether the arrest of the Petitioner

was in conformity with the provisions contained in Article 21

and 22(1) of the Constitution of India read with Sections-47, 48

and 62 of the BNSS, 2023.

Page 33 of 76

36. Before proceeding to answer the question that has been

formulated in the preceding paragraph, this Court deems it proper

to refer to the provisions of the Constitution of India as well as

the BNSS, 2023, as relied upon by the learned Senior Counsels

appearing on behalf of the Petitioner.

Constitution of India

Article-21 - Protection of life and personal

liberty. – No person shall be deprived of his life or

personal liberty except according to procedure

established by law.

Article-22 - Protection against arrest and

detention in certain cases.-(1) No person

who is arrested shall be detained in custody

without being informed, as soon as may be, of the

grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the

right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal

practitioner of his choice.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Section-47 - Person arrested to be informed of grounds

of arrest and of right to bail.-(1) Every police officer or

other person arresting any person without warrant shall

forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the

offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such

arrest.

(2) Where a police officer arrests without warrant any

person other than a person accused of a non-bailable

offence, he shall inform the person arrested that he is

entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange for

sureties on his behalf.

Page 34 of 76

Section-48 - Obligation of person making arrest to

inform about arrest, etc., to relative or friend.- (1)

Every police officer or other person making any arrest

under this Sanhita shall forthwith give the information

regarding such arrest and place where the arrested person

is being held to any of his relatives, friends or such other

persons as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested

person for the purpose of giving such information and

also to the designated police officer in the district.

(2) The police officer shall inform the arrested person

of his rights under sub-section (1) as soon as he is brought

to the police station.

(3) An entry of the fact as to who has been informed of

the arrest of such person shall be made in a book to be

kept in the police station in such form as the State

Government may, by rules, provide.

(4) It shall be the duty of the Magistrate before whom

such arrested person is produced, to satisfy himself that

the requirements of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3)

have been complied with in respect of such arrested

person.

Section-62 - Arrest to be made strictly according to

Sanhita. - No arrest shall be made except in accordance

with the provisions of this Sanhita or any other law for the

time being in force providing for arrest.

37. A bare reading of the aforesaid provisions conveys the

legislative intention in enacting such a provision in the B.N.S.S.,

2023. At the outset, this Court would like to observe that the

provisions of the B.N.S.S., 2023 quoted hereinabove are in

furtherance of the sacred objective to enforce the invaluable

fundamental right as contained Article-21 and 22(1) of the

Page 35 of 76

Constitution of India. Article-21 of the Constitution of India,

which falls in Part-III thereof, lays down the fundamental rights

guaranteed to every citizen in clear terms and aims to protect the

life and personal liberty of every person. Such guarantee under

the Constitution is fundamental to every citizen and such person

shall not be deprived of such a right except according to the

procedure established by law. Thus, it is very clear from Article-

21 of the Constitution of India that a person can be deprived of

his life or personal liberty strictly according to the procedure

established by law only. Similarly, Article 22 of the Constitution

of India has been engrafted into the Constitution of India to aid

and assist the full implementation of the constitutional guarantee

under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article-22 of the

Constitution of India provides a protection to a person against

arrest and detention. Article-22(1) of the Constitution of India

specifically lays down that no person who is arrested shall be

detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be,

of the grounds for such arrest. Such constitutional protection

appearing in Part-III of the Constitution giving protection to a

person against arrest has been incorporated in B.N.S.S., 2023,

Page 36 of 76

more specifically in Section-47 thereof. Section-47 of the

B.N.S.S., 2023 has already been quoted hereinabove for better

appreciation.

38. While analysing the interpretation and impact of Article-

22(1) read with Section 47 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, this Court

would like to highlight the requirements under the aforesaid

provisions. While Article-22(1) of the Constitution of India

provides that no person who is arrested shall be detained in

custody without being informed of the grounds of arrest. The

B.N.S.S., 2023 puts such constitutional objective into action in

the shape of Section-47, which recognizes the constitutional right

of the person under Article 22(1) and makes it a mandatory

procedure that every police officer or other person arresting any

person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full

particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other

grounds of such arrest. Moreover, Section-48 of the B.N.S.S.,

2023 also makes it mandatory that every police officer or other

person making any such arrest under the B.N.S.S., 2023 shall

forthwith give the information regarding such arrest and the place

where the arrested person is being held, to any of his relatives,

Page 37 of 76

friends or such other persons as may be disclosed or nominated

by the arrested person for this purpose. On a careful reading of

both Article-22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as Section

47 & 48 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, this Court has no doubt in mind at

all that it is a mandatory requirement which has to be followed

by every police officer or other person making an arrest under

B.N.S.S., 2023.

39. Before analysing the issue further, this Court would like

to bring on record certain developments that had taken place

during the pendency of the present bail application. After

hearing of the bail application was concluded, the learned Senior

Counsels appearing on behalf of the Accused-Petitioner

mentioned the matter before this Court and sought for leave to

file a copy of the supplementary charge sheet vide Charge Sheet

No.2 dated 24.06.2026 filed by the Baidyanathpur Police Station

in G.R. Case No.2774 of 2025, corresponding to S.T. Case No.18

of 2026 supported by a Memorandum dated 06.07.2026. He was

granted leave to file such supplementary charge sheet.

Accordingly, the supplementary charge sheet has been taken on

record.

Page 38 of 76

40. On perusal of the supplementary charge sheet containing

193 pages, it is observed that the prosecution, after further

investigation into the matter has brought on record certain

additional materials, although the basic allegation against the

present Petitioner remains the same and it is entirely based on

circumstantial evidence. Such position remains unaltered even

after filing of the supplementary charge sheet. Although the

allegations made in the supplementary charge sheet against the

present Petitioner are of serious nature, it is not disputed that

such allegations are based on circumstantial evidence collected in

the course of the investigation.

41. Before delving into the merits of the issue raised on

behalf of the Petitioner, it is apt to refer to a Notification of the

Home Department of the Government of Odisha dated 28

th

February, 2025 which has been filed along with the bail

application and marked as Annexure-8. On perusal of the

aforesaid Notification, it appears that the Home Department,

Government of Odisha in exercise of its power conferred by sub-

section(3) of Section-48 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, read with

Government of Odisha, Home Department Notification dated

Page 39 of 76

30.06.2024, framed a rule which is called as “Odisha

Information of Arrested Persons Rules, 2025” (hereinafter

“Rules, 2025”). The preamble of the aforesaid Rules itself

reveals that the State Government in exercise of the power

conferred upon it under Section 48(3) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 has

enacted such rule. Rule-3 of the aforesaid Rules, 2025 provides

as follows:-

“3. Duties of the police officer regarding giving

information as provided under section 48 of

Sanhita. -

(i) the police officer or any other person

making any arrest under this Sanhita is duty

bound to provide information regarding the

offence committed as specified in clause (e) of

sub-section (1) of Section (2) of this Sanhita;

(ii) every police officer or any other person

making any arrest under this Sanhita shall give

the information regarding such arrest and place

where the arrested person is being held to any of

his relatives, friends or such other persons as may

be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person

for the purpose of giving such information;

(iii) an entry of the fact as to who has been

informed of the arrest of such person shall be

made in the Arrest Register to be kept in the

police station in form i.e. Annexure "A" attached

with these rules without any delay and shall send

the information regarding arrest as specified

under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of

this Sanhita; and

Page 40 of 76

(iv) the information of arrest including

complete particulars shall also be given to the

designated police officer in control room at Police

Station, District and State as notified vide Home

Department, Government of Odisha Notification

bearing No. 22523/ CP&M, PTI-HOME-CPM-

MISC-0136-2024 dated 30.06.2024, who shall be

duty bound to maintain a record of all such arrest.

The record shall be maintained in the form as

given in Annexure "B".”

On a careful reading of the said Rules, it is evident that

the Rule-3 of the Rules, 2025 prescribes Annexure-A under sub-

rule (iii) and Annexure-B under sub-rule (iv). Annexure-A

prescribes a format wherein details regarding the person who has

been informed of the arrest of the accused have to be entered in

the Arrest Register which is to be kept in the Police Station.

Similarly, Annexure-B prescribes another form where the

complete particulars of arrested persons shall be given to the

designated Police Officer in Control Room at Police Station,

District and State, as notified in the Home Department

Notification dated 30.06.2024. Thus, the procedural requirement

of Section 47 and 48 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 was made clear by

virtue of the Home Department, Government of Odisha

Notification dated 28

th

February, 2025, which has been widely

circulated among all concerned police officials for information

Page 41 of 76

and necessary action in the State of Odisha. Clause-10 of such

Form in Annexure-A of the Rules, 2025 clearly provides that the

reasons/grounds of arrest are to be recorded in writing and the

same is to be communicated pursuant to the aforesaid rules.

42. While analyzing and answering the question of law

involved in the present bail application as has been raised by the

learned Senior Counsels appearing on behalf of the Petitioner,

this Court would like to allude to some of the judgments of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court dealing with identical issues, i.e.

communication of grounds of arrest to the arrested person. The

issue came before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan

Kumar’s case (supra), was considering the validity and legality

of an arrest made under the provisions of the Prevention of

Money Laundering Act, 2002 pursuant to commission of an

economic offence. There, a ground was taken on behalf of the

Accused-Appellant that the accused was not informed of the

grounds of arrest before he was detained in custody. There exists

a pari materia provision in the shape of Section-19(1) of the

PMLA Act, which requires informing the arrestee of the grounds

of arrest.

Page 42 of 76

43. In Vihaan Kumar’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme

Court was required to answer the issue canvased by the

Appellant and to examine the validity of such arrest in the light

of the provisions contained in Article-22(1) of the Constitution of

India, read with Section-57 of the Cr.P.C., 1973. After taking

note of the several provisions contained in PMLA Act as well as

the Cr.P.C., the Hon’ble Supreme Court has concluded in

para-26 of the judgment that the requirement of informing a

person arrested of grounds of arrest is mandatory in nature. Such

information regarding grounds of arrest must be provided to the

arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the

basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and

communicated to the arrested person effectively, in the language

which he understands. Furthermore, the mode and method of

communication must be such that the object of constitutional

safeguard is achieved.

44. While answering the all important questions of law that is

involved in the present application and the applicability of such

legal issue to the facts of the present case, it would be apt to

analyze the factual scenario involved in the judgment of the

Page 43 of 76

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar’s case (supra). In the

said reported judgment, the Appellant was arrested in connection

with F.I.R. No.121 of 2023 dated 25

th

March, 2023, registered for

commission of the offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468

and 471 read with Section 120-B of the I.P.C. According to the

Appellant’s case, he was arrested on 10

th

June 2024 at about

10.30 A.M at his office premises. He was taken to DLF Police

Station, Gurugram, Haryana and was allegedly produced before

the learned Judicial Magistrate at Gurgaon on 11

th

June 2024 at

3.30 P.M. Thus, it was alleged by the Appellant that there exists

a violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The allegation

further reveals that neither in the remand report, nor in the order

dated 11

th

June 2024 passed by the learned Magistrate was the

time of arrest mentioned. According to the prosecution, the

Appellant was arrested on 10

th

June 2024 at 6.00 P.M. and, as

such, it was alleged that compliance to the requirement of Article

22(2) was made.

A specific allegation was made on behalf of the Appellant

that the Appellant was not informed about the grounds of arrest

Page 44 of 76

or reasons for arrest and, hence, there is a violation of Section 50

of the Cr.P.C and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. In

fact, a specific ground was taken in the petition by the Appellant

that the grounds of arrest were not informed to the Appellant,

which has not been denied by the police. The Arresting

Authority took a ground that the Appellant’s wife was informed

about the arrest.

In course of hearing of the above noted appeal, the

attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was drawn to the arrest

memo which contained details of the offence, time and date of

arrest, etc. It was also submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court that the High Court examined the case diaries and that in

the daily diary, an entry was made at 6:10 P.M. on 10

th

June,

2024, noting that the Appellant was arrested after informing him

of the grounds of arrest. An attempt was made by the Arresting

Authority to repeal the contention of the Appellant on the ground

that the grounds of arrest have been set out in the remand report

dated 11

th

June 2024. Moreover, it was also urged that there is a

delay of more than two months in raising a contention regarding

the violation of Article 22(1).

Page 45 of 76

45. While answering the questions raised before it, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court, referring to Article 22(1) and Article

22(5), has observed that the grounds urged concerning both the

Articles are identical and, that the interpretation of the

Constitution Bench in Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra,

reported in 1962 SCC OnLine SC 117, shall ipso facto apply to

Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insofar as the

requirement to communicate the ground of arrest is concerned. A

reference in the aforesaid context has also been made to the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha

v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254, wherein

it has been held that any infringement of the fundamental right

under Article-22 would vitiate the process of arrest and remand.

Further, with regard to the word ‘communicate’, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, while referring to the case of Lallubhai Jogibhai

Patel v. Union of India, reported in (1981) 2 SCC 427, observed

that ‘communicate’ is a strong word. It means that sufficient

knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds should be

imparted effectively and fully to the detenue, in writing and in a

language which he understands. Moreover, it has also been

Page 46 of 76

observed that if the ‘grounds’ are only verbally explained to the

detenue and nothing in writing is left with him, in a language

which he understands, then that purpose is not served, and the

constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 22(5) is infringed.

Therefore, as far as Article 22(1) is concerned,

compliance can be made by communicating sufficient knowledge

of the basic facts constituting the grounds of arrest to the person

arrested. The grounds should be effectively and fully

communicated to the arrestee in the manner in which he will

fully understand the same. Therefore, it follows that the ground

of arrest must be informed in a language which the arrestee

understands. Reference has also been made to the judgment of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India,

reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576, wherein it was held that the mode

of conveying the grounds of arrest must necessarily be

meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose. However, under

Article 22(1), there is no requirement of communicating the

grounds of arrest in writing. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also

held that if the grounds of arrest are not communicated to the

arrestee, as soon as may be, he will not be able to effectively

Page 47 of 76

exercise the right to consult an advocate. This requirement

incorporated in Article 22(1) also ensures that the grounds for

arresting the person without a warrant exist. Once a person is

arrested, his right to liberty under Article 21 is curtailed. When

such an important fundamental right is curtailed, it is necessary

that the person concerned must understand on what grounds he

has been arrested. That is why the mode of conveying

information of the grounds must be meaningful so as to serve the

objects stated above. Thus, the requirement of informing the

person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a

mandatory constitutional requirement. As such, it is the

fundamental right of every person arrested and detained in

custody to be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as

possible. Unless such a practice is followed, the same would

amount to not only infringement of the fundamental right of the

arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of

India, but also deprivation of the arrestee’s liberty.

Eventually, in Vihaan Kumar’s case (supra), the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, paragraph 26 onwards while discussing the

Page 48 of 76

constitutional as well as the legal provisions had arrived at the

following conclusions:-

“26.1. The requirement of informing a person

arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory

requirement of Article 22(1);

26.2. The information of the grounds of arrest

must be provided to the arrested person in such a

manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts

constituting the grounds is imparted and

communicated to the arrested person effectively in

the language which he understands. The mode and

method of communication must be such that the

object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved;

26.3. When arrested accused alleges non-

compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1),

the burden will always be on the Investigating

Officer/Agency to prove compliance with the

requirements of Article 22(1);

26.4. Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a

violation of the fundamental rights of the accused

guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will

amount to a violation of the right to personal

liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the

Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance with the

requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of

the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a

criminal court of remand are also vitiated.

Needless to add that it will not vitiate the

investigation, charge sheet and trial. But, at the

same time, filing of charge sheet will not validate a

Page 49 of 76

breach of constitutional mandate under Article

22(1);

26.5. When an arrested person is produced before

a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of

the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance

with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards

has been made; and

26.6. When a violation of Article 22(1) is

established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith

order the release of the accused. That will be a

ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions

on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions

do not affect the power of the court to grant bail

when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the

Constitution is established.”

46. Keeping in view the aforesaid ratio laid down in Vihaan

Kumar’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court proceeded

with the examination of the allegation made at the behest of the

Appellant with regard to non-compliance of the mandatory

constitutional and statutory provisions. While analyzing the

factual background of the case and the stand taken by the

Investigating Agency that the grounds arrest was explained to

wife of the arrestee in detail, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found

that the same is an afterthought and that such compliance does

not meet the standard laid down under Article 21(1) of the

Page 50 of 76

Constitution of India as well as the provisions contained in the

BNSS. It has been specifically held that communication of

grounds of arrest to the wife of arrestee is no compliance with the

mandate of Article 22(1). The Hon’ble Supreme Court, on the

basis of the allegation made in the appeal memo, examined the

arrest memo in detail. It was observed that the arrest memo

incorporates the name of the arrested person, his permanent

address, present address, particulars of FIR and Section applied,

place of arrest, date and time of arrest, the name of the officer

arresting the accused and name, address and phone number of the

person to whom information about arrest has been given. After a

detailed examination of the arrest memo, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has come to a conclusion that it contains only the

information revealed therein and not grounds of arrest.

Moreover, it has also observed that the information about the

grounds of arrest is completely different from information on the

ground of arrest. Mere information of arrest will not amount to

furnishing grounds of arrest. Finally, in paragraphs-33 and 34,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court has concluded as follows, which

needs to be quoted herein below for reference :-

Page 51 of 76

“33. Reliance was placed in this regard on the

case diary entry of 10

th

June 2024 at 6.10 P.M.,

which records that the Appellant was arrested

after informing him of the grounds of arrest. This

was not pleaded before the High Court as well as

in this Court in the reply of 1st respondent. This is

an afterthought. Considering the stand taken in the

reply filed before the High Court and this Court,

only on the basis of a vague entry in the police

diary, we cannot accept that compliance

with Article 22(1) can be inferred. No

contemporaneous documents have been put on

record wherein the grounds of arrest have been

noted. Therefore, reliance placed on the diary

entries is completely irrelevant.”

“34. 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

failure to communicate the grounds of arrest to the

Appellant as mandated by Article 22(1) of the

Constitution.”

It would also be apt to quote para-37 of the judgment,

which would assist this Court in analyzing the issue involved in

the present application:-

“37. The learned Single Judge, 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

Page 52 of 76

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 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.”

47. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India that when the arrested accused alleges

non-compliance with the requirements of Article-22(1) the

burden will always be on the Investigating Officer/Agency to

prove compliance with the requirement of Article 22(1), non-

compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the

fundamental rights of the accused and his right to personal liberty

guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Such

Page 53 of 76

violation also vitiates the arrest of the accused. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court further held that it is the duty of the Judicial

Magistrate before whom the accused is produced to ascertain

whether Article-22(1) and other mandatory safeguards have been

complied and, when the violation of such constitutional

safeguard is established, it is the duty of the court to order the

release of the accused forthwith. Such power to grant bail in the

aforesaid scenario shall overwrite any statutory restriction with

regard to non-granting of bail.

48. While finally allowing the appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has also laid down certain guidelines in para-39 of the

judgment. It is relevant to note here that the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar’s case (supra) was

delivered on 07.02.2025 and the rules framed by the Home

Department, Government of Odisha, at Annexure-8, was notified

on 28

th

February, 2025. Therefore, the procedure with regard to

arrest of a person in the context of the provisions contained in

B.N.S.S., 2023 was clear by end of February, 2025.

49. In Ashish Kakkar v. UT of Chandigarh, reported in 2025

LiveLaw (SC) 367, arising out of Criminal Appeal No.1518 of

Page 54 of 76

2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while deciding an identical

issue, found that there is a clear non-compliance of the mandate

under Section-50 of the Cr.P.C and violation of Article-22(1) of

the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the impugned judgment

was set aside by taking into consideration the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha (supra).

50. Learned Senior Counsels appearing on behalf of the

Accused- Petitioner heavily relied upon the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of

Maharashtra, reported in (2026) 1 SCC 500. In Mihir Rajesh

Shah (supra), which was heard analogously with many similar

appeals pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the main

issue that was raised by the Appellant was the violation of the

Appellant’s right under Article-22(1) of the Constitution of India

and Section 50 of the Cr.P.C (now Section 47 of the B.N.S.S.,

2023). The main plank of the argument on behalf of the

Appellant therein was that he was not informed of the grounds of

arrest in writing. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after taking note

of the judgments in Pankaj Bansal (supra), Prabir Purkayastha

(supra), and Vihaan Kumar (supra), as well as the provisions

Page 55 of 76

contained in Section 47 and 48 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 and on a

threadbare analysis of the development of the jurisprudence with

respect to proving information of the grounds of arrest over the

years, made the following observations in para-39 of the

judgment:-

“39. The obligation to inform the grounds of

arrest to the arrestee is thus, not just a mere

procedural formality, instead it flows from the

fundamental right of personal liberty which sets

the further course for protection from the

oppressive restrictions imposed upon the free

movement in the society of an arrestee during

remand. A plain reading of Article 22(1) of the

Constitution of India shows that the intent of the

constitution makers while incorporating the

provisions was not to create any exceptional

circumstances, instead it reads as “No person

who is arrested shall be detained in custody

without being informed, as soon as may be, of

the grounds for such arrest….”, it casts a

mandatory unexceptional duty on the State to

provide the arrested person with the grounds of

such arrest with the objective to enable that

person to be able to defend himself by consulting

a legal practitioner of his choice. This mandate

of Article 22(1) is notwithstanding any

exception. This Court has made it explicit that

the constitutional obligation under Article 22 is

not statute-specific and it is grounded in

fundamental right of life and personal liberty

Page 56 of 76

under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,

therefore making it applicable to all offences

including those under the Indian Penal

Code 1860 (now BNS 2023).”

51. It is also relevant to refer to the observation made in

para-42 of the judgment in the context of communication of

grounds of arrest:-

“42. As mentioned above, it has been held while

dealing with the mode of communicating the

grounds of arrest so as to serve the intended

purpose of the constitutional mandate that 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 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, if

he is a literate person. The relevant portion

thereof reads thus:

“7. It has not been found by the High

Court that the Appellant knew enough

Page 57 of 76

English to understand the grounds of

his detention. The High Court has only

stated that ‘he has studied up to 7th

Hindi standard, which is equivalent to

3rd English standard’. The High Court

negatived the contention raised on

behalf of the Appellant not on the

ground that the Appellant knew

enough English, to understand the

case against him, but on the ground,

as already indicated, that the service

upon him of the Order and grounds of

detention in English was enough

communication to him to enable him to

make his representation. We must,

therefore, proceed on the assumption

that the Appellant did not know

enough English to understand the

grounds, contained in many

paragraphs, as indicated above, in

order to be able effectively to make his

representation against the Order of

Detention. The learned Attorney-

General has tried to answer this

contention in several ways. He has

first contended that when the

Constitution speaks of communicating

the grounds of detention to the

detenue, it means communication in

the official language, which continues

to be English; secondly, the

communication need not be in writing

and the translation and explanation in

Hindi offered by the Inspector of

Police, while serving the Order of

Page 58 of 76

Detention and the grounds would be

enough compliance with the

requirements of the law and the

Constitution; and thirdly, that it was

not necessary in the circumstances of

the case to supply the grounds in

Hindi. In our opinion, this was not

sufficient compliance in this case with

the requirements of the Constitution,

as laid down in clause (5) of Article

22. To a person, who is not conversant

with the English language, service of

the Order and the grounds of detention

in English, with their oral translation

or explanation by the police officer

serving them does not fulfil the

requirements of the law. As has been

explained by this Court in the case

of State of Bombay v. Atma Ram

Sridhar Vaidya [MANU/SC/0015/1951

: 1951 : INSC4 : 1951 SCC 43 :

(1951) SCR 167] 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

Page 59 of 76

against the Order, he should have

knowledge of the grounds of detention,

which are in the nature of the charge

against him setting out the kinds of

prejudicial acts which the authorities

attribute to him. Communication, in

this context, must, therefore, mean

imparting to the detenue sufficient

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 communicating the grounds.

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.

8. We do not agree with the High

Court in its conclusion that in every

case communication of the grounds of

detention in English, so long as it

continues to be the official language of

the State, is enough compliance with

the requirements of the Constitution. If

the detained person is conversant with

the English language, he will naturally

be in a position to understand the

Page 60 of 76

gravamen of the charge against him

and the facts and circumstances on

which the order of detention is based.

But to a person who is not so

conversant with the English language,

in order to satisfy the requirements of

the Constitution, the detenue must be

given the grounds in a language which

he can understand, and in a script

which he can read, if he is a literate

person.”

52. In Mihir Rajesh Shah’s case (supra), a Coordinate Bench

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with an identical

issue with regard to furnishing grounds of arrest to the accused

either before arrest or forthwith after arrest has also followed and

referred to the judgment in Pankaj Bansal’s case (supra), Prabir

Purkayastha’s case (supra) and more importantly in Vihaan

Kumar’s case (supra). After analyzing the law governing the

field succinctly, the later Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

para-66 of the judgment has drawn the following conclusion. For

the purpose of reference, the same is quoted hereinbelow:-

“66.1. The constitutional mandate of informing

the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in

all offences under all statutes including offences

under IPC, 1860 (now BNS 2023);

Page 61 of 76

66.2. The grounds of arrest must be

communicated in writing to the arrestee in the

language he/she understands;

66.3. 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.

66.4. In case of non-compliance of the above, the

arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered

illegal and the person will be at liberty to be set

free.”

While drawing the aforesaid conclusion in Mihir Rajesh

Shah’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further

observed that the provision of law under Section 50 Cr.P.C.

(presently Section 47 of BNSS 2023) does not provide for a

specific mode or time-frame for communication of the grounds of

arrest to the person arrested. The Supreme Court in Prabir

Purkayastha’ (supra) held that the grounds of arrest be conveyed

to the arrestee in writing, in all offences, at the earliest, as a

matter of course and without exception. Which means, for

offences under all the statutes, it need not necessarily be given at

Page 62 of 76

the time of arrest but within a reasonable time, as laid down in

that statute, thereafter. It has also been clarified that there existed

no consistent or binding requirement mandating written

communication of the grounds of arrest for all the offences.

Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that the law laid down in

Mihir Rajesh Shah’s case (supra) 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 in

the aforesaid judgment shall govern arrests henceforth.

In view of the conclusion drawn on in para-66 of the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah’s

case (supra) and the constitutional observation in para-68, the

application of the provision contained in Article 22(1) with

corresponding provisions in the Cr.P.C, as well as in the BNSS,

cannot be interpreted in a restricted manner so as to effectively

convey that non-communication of such grounds of arrest would

only be applicable from the date of the judgment in Mihir Rajesh

Page 63 of 76

Shah’s case (supra) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Needless to

say, the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest to

the arrestee is a constitutional mandate, which has also been

incorporated in the statute book to ensure the effective

administration of the criminal justice system. The issue, being

one of considerable constitutional significance and directly

affecting the fundamental rights of an arrestee, has already been

analysed and authoritatively settled in the earlier judgments of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including by the Constitution Bench.

It therefore cannot be given a restrictive interpretation so as to

hold that the requirement would apply only from the date of the

judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra). The intention of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court, while making the observation in para-68

of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), was clearly to make it mandatory

on the part of the Arresting Officers/Agencies to follow the

conclusion drawn in para-66 thereof, while arresting a person

henceforth. Thus, the observation in para-68 of the judgment in

Mihir Rajesh Shah’s case (supra) does not curtail or take away

the fundamental right of an arrestee to be communicated with the

grounds of arrest as has been guaranteed under the constitution as

Page 64 of 76

well as under the statute. Thus, this Court respectfully disagrees

with the view taken by a coordinate Bench in Akash Kori @

Kasua v. State of Odisha (BLAPL No.11721 of 2025, decided on

23.02.2026) with regard to written communication of grounds of

arrest to the arrestee to the effect that such a provision of law

would be applicable prospectively.

53. Returning to the facts of the instant case, it is observed

that the Petitioner being aggrieved by the rejection of his bail

application by the learned Magistrate and consequential remand

order moved the bail application before the learned 3

rd

Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Berhampur, primarily on two

grounds; firstly, his arrest is illegal inasmuch as no grounds of

arrest in writing has been communicated to him or his family

members at the time of arrest and, secondly, confessional

statement of the co-accused persons could not have been taken

into consideration by the learned Magistrate. During hearing of

the bail application by the learned Sessions Court, the

chargesheet was filed on 3.01.2026 primarily arraigning the

Petitioner therein on the ground of confessional statements, extra

judicial confession, statements of chance witness, CDR and the

Page 65 of 76

motive on basis of previous rivalry. Since the bail application

was rejected by the learned Sessions Court, the Petitioner has

approached this Court for his release on bail, primarily on the

ground of non-compliance of the mandatory provision of

communication of grounds of arrest in writing, apart from the

other grounds taken on the merits of the matter like confessional

statement of co accused is not admissible in evidence, extra

judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence etc. With regard

to the conspiracy theory, it has been explained in detail in the

written notes of submission and argued by the learned Senior

Counsels for the Petitioner that the same is based on the fact of

previous rivalry which is basically a double-edged sword and

there exists every possibility of a person being implicated falsely

in a crime on such ground. The conspiracy theory is based on call

records, the contents of which are yet to be proved and

established. It was urged before this court that the Petitioner

being a political activist and a former MLA, is expected to

receive calls from multiple quarters including persons having

criminal background. Thus, such calls alone cannot form the

foundation for implicating the Petitioner in the conspiracy theory

Page 66 of 76

unless some tangible and trustworthy evidence crops up to lend

credence to such theory.

54. With regard to the main plank of argument of learned

Senior Counsels appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, i.e. the

grounds of arrest were not communicated in writing to the

Petitioner as well as his family members, the learned Senior

Counsels for the Petitioner have stated before this Court that from

the very inception of his arrest, the Petitioner was not served with

written grounds of arrest by the arresting officer. This, it is

submitted, constitutes a flagrant violation of the constitutional

safeguards guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the

Constitution of India, as also the statutory mandates under

Sections 47, 48 and 62 of the BNSS, 2023. It is submitted that the

Memo of Arrest furnished to the Petitioner only mentions “In the

strength of above noted case” in the ‘Grounds of Arrest’ column,

which is a wholly vague, non-specific, and constitutionally

inadequate statement that does not disclose the nature of the

accusations, the manner of the Petitioner’s alleged involvement,

or the specific acts attributed to him. Learned Senior Counsels

have contended that the FIR being registered against unknown

Page 67 of 76

accused persons, the obligation on the I.O was all the more

heightened to provide specific, cogent grounds of arrest.

55. Per contra, The Prosecution-State led by the learned

AGA, in course of his submission as well as in his written note of

submission, disputed the allegation of non-supply of written

grounds of arrest. It was submitted that the Investigating Officer

duly prepared written grounds of arrest on 22.10.2025, i.e. the

very date of arrest, and the same was read out to and

communicated orally in Odia to the Petitioner before the formal

arrest at 3:30 AM. It was stated that the Petitioner wilfully and

deliberately refused to sign the Memo of Arrest, the grounds of

arrest, and all other connected papers, in the presence of two

independent witnesses, namely Badri Narayan Nayak (an

Advocate), and Chandra Sekhar Gouda (Advocate). The learned

AGA contended that a person cannot be permitted to take

advantage of his own wrongs. The Petitioner’s deliberate refusal

to sign the duly constituted Memo of Arrest cannot be

weaponized as a procedural shield to invalidate an otherwise

lawful arrest.

Page 68 of 76

56. The Prosecution-State further submitted that the grounds

of arrest of the Petitioner were communicated to the family of the

Petitioner as well. In fact, the father of the Petitioner, Kishore

Chandra Panda, was informed telephonically about the arrest and

the grounds thereof and was requested to receive copies of the

arrest memo and grounds of arrest, which he also refused.

57. This Court, on a careful analysis of the rival contentions

and on a careful scrutiny of the case diary as well as other

documents placed on record during hearing of this application,

found that the Arresting Officer had prepared an arrest memo.

Admittedly, the same has not been received by the accused

Petitioner. Although, the Prosecution has taken a stand that the

same was refused to be received by the accused Petitioner. All

other co-accused persons have received the arrest memo with due

acknowledgement, which is evident from the copies of such

arrest memos. Nothing was brought on record to demonstrate that

the grounds of arrest in writing were ever communicated to the

accused Petitioner. Moreover, a close scrutiny of the arrest memo

in respect of the accused Petitioner doesn’t clearly indicate the

grounds of arrest or detention of the Petitioner. Additionally, the

Page 69 of 76

‘Grounds of Arrest’ column in the arrest memo contains only the

noting: “In the strength of above noted case”. Other than the

above document no other document was placed on record to

satisfy this court with regard to communication of grounds of

arrest of the Accused-Petitioner. Such factual backdrop doesn’t

inspire the confidence of this court with regard to communication

of grounds of arrest to the accused Petitioner. Moreover, such

procedure adopted by the investigating agency/ Arresting Officer

falls short of the standard prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India in Vihaan Kumar’s case (supra) as well as in

Mihir Rajesh Shah’s case (supra). Thus, this Court, under the

present fact and circumstances has no other option but to hold

that the grounds of arrest have not been communicated to the

Petitioner either at the time of arrest or immediately thereafter

and such failure leads to infringement of the rights guaranteed to

the Petitioner under the Constitution as well as in the BNSS,

2023.

58. On a further conspectus of the facts of the present case,

upon a careful analysis of the submissions made by the learned

Senior Counsels appearing for the Petitioner as well as the

Page 70 of 76

arguments advanced by the learned Additional Government

Advocate and on a careful reading of the written note of

submissions filed by both sides, this Court observes that the

present Petitioner has been implicated in the present crime as a

co-conspirator. There is no evidence on record that the Petitioner

participated directly in the commission of the crime. In the

meantime, a final charge sheet has also been filed by the

Investigating Agency, after a detailed investigation and, the

Petitioner has been accused as a co-conspirator in the alleged

crime. It is also a matter of record that the Petitioner has been

implicated as a co-conspirator on the basis of the co-accused

statement and the evidence of the co-accused persons to the effect

that the Petitioner was known to the deceased, working together

and doing business with him, which later fell apart due to a

misunderstanding. It has also been specifically alleged that the

present Petitioner, in collusion with accused Pintu Dash, hatched

conspiracy and that the accused Pintu Dash had sent money to

another accused to hire a killer. The Investigating Agency has

alleged indirect nexus of the present Petitioner through some of

the co-accused persons with the two principal accused persons,

Page 71 of 76

who had executed the plan. From the materials collected in

course of investigation, it is evident that though the Petitioner did

not participate in the execution of the plan and in the killing of

the deceased, however, on the basis of some of the co-accused

statement he has been implicated as a co-conspirator in the

present crime.

59. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for

the State-Opposite Party, in course of his argument, in an attempt

to sway this Court and to establish the fact that the present

Petitioner is a party to the conspiracy, referred to the statement of

some of the co-accused persons including an extra-judicial

confession by one of the co-accused. In reply to the same, learned

Senior Counsels appearing for the Petitioner contended that such

statement of the co-accused persons are inadmissible in evidence.

It was also argued on behalf of the Petitioner that the materials

collected by the Investigating Agency, in course of investigation,

are a very weak piece of evidence which would not conclusively

prove the involvement of the Petitioner in the present crime.

60. On a careful examination of the submissions made by the

learned Senior Counsels appearing for the Petitioner as well as

Page 72 of 76

the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-

Prosecution, this Court is of the view that it would be pre-mature,

at this stage, to make any observation on such co-accused

statement with regard to the conspiracy theory as well as the

involvement of the present Petitioner in the alleged crime.

Especially, since it is best that the allegation regarding the

conspiracy is to be proved and established during a full-fledged

trial. Therefore, it would not be proper on the part of this Court to

make any observation on such evidence collected by the

Investigating Agency during investigation. Moreover, at the

current stage of hearing of bail application, this Court is not

required to delve into the details of such allegation and counter

allegations, leaving it to the trial court to examine the same

during trial, in detail. So far as the law relating to the

communication of the grounds of arrest to the accused are

concerned, the same is required to be considered keeping in view

the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of

judgments which have been referred to and discussed threadbare

in the present judgment. Two of the later judgments of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar’s case (supra) and

Page 73 of 76

Mihir Rajesh Shah’s case (supra), as discussed above, are of

particular relevance for the purpose of the present case.

61. On a careful analysis of the submissions made by both

sides, further on close scrutiny of the voluminous case diary

which was produced before this Court in course of hearing of the

bail application and in light of the foregoing analysis, this Court

observes that the Arresting Officer/Agency has failed to

discharge its obligation of satisfying this Court that the grounds

of arrest were in fact informed to the Accused-Petitioner, either at

the time of arrest or at a subsequent stage.

62. Likewise, considering the emphatic submissions of the

Learned Senior Counsels appearing for the Petitioner that such

ground of arrest have not been informed either to the Petitioner or

his friends and relatives and the stout rebuttal of the same by the

learned Additional Government Advocate, this Court, prima facie

concludes that the grounds of arrest have not been communicated

to the Petitioner in the manner mandated in Article 21(1) of the

Constitution of India as well as the provisions contained in

Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS and in terms of the mandate of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 26 of Vihaan Kumar’s case

Page 74 of 76

(supra) and in Para-66 of Mihir Rajesh Shah’s case (supra). As

such, this Court holds that the non-communication of grounds of

arrest, so far the present Petitioner is concerned, which is evident

from the arrest memo and which remains unsubstantiated by the

prosecution, violates the Petitioner’s fundamental as well as legal

rights.

63. In view of the foregoing analysis of the legal as well as

the factual position involved in the present bail application, this

court has no hesitation to hold that the Arresting Officer has not

followed the mandatory provisions contained in the Section 47

and 48 of the BNSS, 2023 and, as such, the fundamental right of

the Accused-Petitioner under Article 22(1) has been infringed.

Accordingly, it is held that;

(i) The arrest of the Accused-Petitioner is held to

be vitiated. Therefore, the Petitioner be forthwith set

at liberty;

(ii) The finding of this court that the arrest of the

Petitioner stands vitiated will not affect the merits of

the chargesheet and the pending trial;

Page 75 of 76

(iii) The aforesaid finding is confined to the case of

the Accused-Petitioner only;

(iv) The Petitioner is directed to furnish a bail bond

in accordance with Section 91 of the BNSS, 2023,

subject to satisfaction of the learned trial court and;

(v) The release of the Petitioner shall be subject to

such other terms and conditions as would be deemed

just and proper by the learned trial court, which

would include a condition that the Petitioner shall

not harass, threaten, terrorize or influence the

victim’s family, the Informant or any other

prosecution witnesses, in any manner whatsoever.

Violation of the conditions imposed either by

this court or the leaned trial court would entail re-

arrest of the Petitioner in accordance with law.

64. Before parting, this Court would further like to observe

that, despite the judgments of the Supreme Court of India

referred to hereinabove, particularly Vihaan Kumar’s case

(supra) and Mihir Rajesh Shah’s case (supra), the police

administration continues to fall short of complying with the

Page 76 of 76

mandatory requirements governing the arrest of accused

persons, particularly the directions issued by the Supreme Court

in the aforesaid judgments. The Registry is directed to

communicate a copy of this judgment, with the kind consent of

the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Orissa, to the Additional Chief

Secretary, Home Department, Government of Odisha as well as

Director General of Police, Odisha, forthwith. Upon receiving a

copy of this judgment, the authorities shall take necessary steps

to communicate the principles/guidelines enumerated by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, and extracted hereinabove at

paragraphs 45 and 52, to all the police stations in the State of

Odisha and other authorities having power to arrest a person

under any statute, with a specific direction to follow such

directives strictly while arresting a person and curtailing his/her

liberty.

65. Accordingly, the bail application stands disposed of with

the observations made hereinabove.

(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)

Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack.

The 31

st

August, 2026/Debasis Aech, Secretary