BLAPL Nos.8402 of 2025 Page 1 of 24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

BLAPL No.8402 of 2025

(In the matter of application under Section 483 of the

BNSS).

Vepanjeri Dileep Kumar

… Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha … Opposite Party

For Petitioner : Mr. M.K.Chand, Advocate

For Opposite Party : Mr. P.Satapathy, Addl. PP

CORAM:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

DATE OF JUDGMENT:11.05.2026

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is the bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by

the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Raighar

PS Case No.93 of 2024 arising out of CT Case No.21 of

2024 for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.

370/370(3)/376-D/294/323/506 pending in the Court of

learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Umarkote.

2. The case arises out of an FIR lodged by Raibabu

Bag by stating therein that on 14.03.2024, one Ghasiram

Harijan of his village lured his brother, sister-in-law and

nephew for earning Rs.35,000/- in four months by

BLAPL Nos.8402 of 2025 Page 2 of 24

working at Tirupati Bricks Factory. On 09.01.2024,

around 14 persons of his village and another village

namely Khalepara were being taken by said Ghasiram

Harijan & his associates to engage them at Tirupati Bricks

Kilns and accordingly, Ghasiram Harijan & his associates

had handed over them to the in-charge of brick kilns and

returned back to home, however, later on the informant

came to know over mobile phone that the aforesaid

persons were suffering a lot by working there in the brick

kilns for more than eight hours without any proper wages

and they have been tortured there.

On the aforesaid FIR, Raighar PS Case No. 93 of

2024 was registered and the matter was investigated

into, and in the course of investigation, finding prima

facie materials against the petitioner for his involvement

in this case, he was taken into custody and produced

before the Court, however, when the bail application of

the petitioner was turned down, he is before this Court in

this bail application.

BLAPL Nos.8402 of 2025 Page 3 of 24

3. Heard Mr.Manas Kumar Chand, learned counsel

for the petitioner and Mr.P.Satapathy, learned Addl. PP in

the matter and perused the record.

4. The primary ground on which bail is sought for

to the petitioner is for infraction in compliance of the

provision of Sec. 58 of BNSS(57 CrPC)/Article 22(2) of

the Constitution of India for not producing the petitioner

before the Court within 24 hours of his arrest excluding

the time necessary for the journey from the place of

arrest to the Court. It is not disputed that the petitioner

was arrested from a place beyond the territorial

jurisdiction of the Court in which the criminal case is

registered, but the plea as advanced for the petitioner

relates to his claim not only for his statutory right, but

also for his fundamental right which cannot be withheld in

any circumstance. There cannot be any real

limitation/restriction, albeit legally imposed prohibiting

criminals in committing crime in one State and fleeing to

other State, but with advancement of technology, this

situation of committing crime in one State and fleeing to

other State has become a common phenomenon for

BLAPL Nos.8402 of 2025 Page 4 of 24

offenders to avoid police arrest, however, the police force

of the State where the crime was committed is also at

liberty to pursue the criminals and apprehend them in

different States where they have fled. In the aforesaid

backdrop, when non-compliance of fundamental and

mandatory right of the accused for his production before

the Court within 24 hours of his arrest without warrant

exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the

place of arrest to the Magistrate’s Court has often been

challenged as in this case, it would be appropriate to deal

with the relevant provisions of law, more particularly in a

case where the arrest of the accused without warrant has

been made beyond the local jurisdiction of the Court in

which the case of the accused has been registered. To

start with this issue, it needs to be emphasized that Sec.

45 of the BNSS/48 of CrPC provides pursuit of offenders

into other jurisdiction as “a police officer may, for the

purpose of arresting without warrant any person whom

he is authorized to arrest, pursue such person into any

place in India”. Similarly, Sec. 79 of the BNSS/77 of CrPC

provides power for execution of warrant at any place in

India, but Sec. 78 of BNSS/76 of CrPC prescribes that

BLAPL Nos.8402 of 2025 Page 5 of 24

person arrested on warrant shall be brought before the

Court issuing such warrant without unnecessary delay

and it is accordingly stated therein that the police officer

or other person executing a warrant of arrest shall

(subject to the provisions of section 73 of BNSS/71 of

CrPC as to security) without unnecessary delay bring the

person arrested before the Court before which he is

required by law to produce such person; Provided that

such delay shall not, in any case, exceed twenty-four

hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey

from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s Court which is

akin to the provision of Sec. 58 of BNSS/57 of CrPC.

5. Normally, the arrest of the offender with or

without warrant at a place outside the local jurisdiction of

the Court is done without any difficulties, but sometimes

complaints are raised about non-cooperation by the local

police at the place of arrest beyond the jurisdiction of the

Court as alleged in this case that the local police did not

cooperate during legal procedure as per law, however,

Sec. 45 of BNSS/48 of CrPC and Sec.79 of BNSS/77 of

CrPC makes it apparently clear that a person can be

BLAPL Nos.8402 of 2025 Page 6 of 24

arrested with or without warrant anywhere in India,

provided there is reasonable/credible allegation disclosing

of commission of cognizable offence or existence of

warrant of arrest, but arrest on warrant directed to the

police officer for execution outside its jurisdiction is

provided in Sec. 81 of the BNSS/79 of CrPC which

provides that when a warrant directed to a police officer

is to be executed beyond the local jurisdiction of the

Court issuing the same, he shall ordinarily take it for

endorsement either to an Executive Magistrate or to a

Police Officer not below the rank of an officer in charge of

a Police Station, within the local limits of whose

jurisdiction the warrant is to be executed. Sec. 81(2) of

BNSS/79(2) of CrPC provides that such Magistrate or

police officer shall endorse his name thereon and such

endorsement shall be sufficient authority to the police

officer to whom the warrant is directed to execute the

same, and the local police shall, if so required, assist such

officer in executing such warrant. Ordinarily, non-

compliance of Sec.81(1)(2) of BNSS/79(1)(2) of CrPC

cannot be countenanced, but there may be situation

which justify the non-compliance of the aforesaid

BLAPL Nos.8402 of 2025 Page 7 of 24

provisions such as non-cooperation of local police,

however, in such situation Sec. 81(3) of BNSS/79(3) of

CrPC comes to the aid since it is provided therein that

whenever there is a reason to believe that the delay

occasioned by obtaining endorsement of the Magistrate or

police officer within whose local jurisdiction the warrant is

to be executed will prevent such execution, the police

officer to whom it is directed may execute the same

without such endorsement in any place beyond the local

jurisdiction of the Court which issued it. The aforesaid

provision of execution of warrant is never an empty

formality, rather it is intended to lend assurance to the

fairness in curtailing the liberty of a person according to

procedure established by law.

6. Sec. 57 of BNSS/56 of CrPC lays down that a

police officer making an arrest without warrant shall,

without unnecessary delay and subject to the

provisions(BNSS/CrPC) herein contained as to bail, take

or send the person arrested before a Magistrate having

jurisdiction in the case, or before the officer in charge of

a police station. Sec. 82(1) of BNSS/80 of CrPC provides

BLAPL Nos.8402 of 2025 Page 8 of 24

procedure on arrest of a person against whom warrant is

issued and it is stated therein that when a warrant of

arrest is executed outside the district in which it was

issued, the person arrested shall, unless the Court which

issued the warrant is within thirty kilometers of the place

of arrest or is nearer than the Executive Magistrate or

District Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of

Police within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the

arrest was made, or unless security is taken under Sec.

73 of BNSS/71 of CrPC be taken before such Magistrate

or District Superintendent or Commissioner. Sec. 82(2) of

BNSS which is an additional provision not provided in

CrPC speaks that on arrest of any person referred to sub-

section(1) of Sec. 82 of BNSS, the police officer shall

forthwith give the information regarding such arrest and

the place where the arrested person is being held to the

designated police officer in the district and to such officer

of another district where the arrested person normally

resides. Sec. 83 of BNSS/81 of CrPC provides that the

Executive Magistrate or District Superintendent of Police

or Commissioner of Police shall, if the person arrested

appears to be the person intended by the Court which

BLAPL Nos.8402 of 2025 Page 9 of 24

issued the warrant, direct his removal in custody to such

Court; provided that, if the offence is bailable, and such

person is ready and willing to give bail to the satisfaction

of such Magistrate, District Superintendent or

Commissioner, or a direction has been endorsed U/S. 73

of BNSS/71 of CrPC on the warrant and such person is

ready and willing to give the security required by such

direction, the Magistrate, District Superintendent or

Commissioner shall take such bail or security, as the case

may be, and forward the bond, to the Court which issued

the warrant; provided further that if the offence is non-

bailable one, it shall be lawful for the Chief Judicial

Magistrate (subject to the provisions of Sec.480 of

BNSS/437 of CrPC), or the Sessions Judge, of the district

in which the arrest is made on consideration of the

information and the documents referred to in sub-

section(2) of Sec. 80 of BNSS/78 of CrPC to release such

person on bail.

7. Even though there is no express provision

provided for arrest of a person outside the local

jurisdiction without warrant to be taken to the local police

BLAPL Nos.8402 of 2025 Page 10 of 24

station or Magistrate for endorsement, however, Sec.

187(1) of BNSS/167 of CrPC makes it very clear that

whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody,

and it appears that investigation cannot be completed

within the period of twenty four hours fixed by Sec. 58 of

BNSS/57 of CrPC and there are grounds for believing that

the accusation or information is well-founded, the officer

in charge of the police station or the police officer making

the investigation, if he is not below the rank of Sub-

Inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest

Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary

specified relating to the case, shall at the same time

forward the accused to such Magistrate and sub-

section(2) to Sec.187 of BNSS/167 of CrPC makes it very

clear that whether the Magistrate to whom an accused

person is forwarded under this section may irrespective of

whether has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from

time to time may authorize the detention of the accused

in such custody as such magistrate thinks fit, for a term

not exceeding fifteen days in the whole, or in part and if

such Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the case

or commit it for trial, and considers further

BLAPL Nos.8402 of 2025 Page 11 of 24

detention unnecessary, he may order the accused

to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such

jurisdiction. Similarly, sub-section(6) to Sec. 187 of

BNSS/2-A of Sec. 167 of CrPC further clarifies that

notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section(1) to

Sub-section (5) of BNSS/ Sub-section(1) or Sub-

section(2) of CrPC, the Officer-in-Charge of the Police

Officer or the Police Officer making the investigation, if he

is not below the rank of Sub-Inspector, may, where a

Judicial Magistrate is not available, transmit to the

nearest Executive Magistrate on whom the powers of a

Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate have been

conferred, a copy of entry in the diary prescribed relating

to the case, and shall, at the same time, forward the

accused to such Executive Magistrate for authorizing

further detention of the accused and such Executive

Magistrate may for reasons to be recorded in writing

authorize the detention of the accused person in such

custody as he may think fit for a term not exceeding

seven days in the aggregate. What is significant is that all

the laws derive power from our Constitution and all the

provisions must be inconformity with the Constitution of

BLAPL Nos.8402 of 2025 Page 12 of 24

India. According to Sec. 22(2) of the Constitution of India

makes it not only mandatory, but also obligatory that

every person who is arrested and detained in custody

shall be produced before the nearest Magistrate within

a period of twenty four hours of such arrest excluding the

time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to

the Court of the Magistrate and no such person shall be

detained in custody beyond the said period without

the authority of a Magistrate.

8. A careful consideration of the provisions as

discussed above makes it very clear that the person

arrested beyond the local jurisdiction of the Court in the

case concerning the accused may be produced without

unnecessary delay before the nearest Magistrate

within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest

excluding the time necessary for the journey from the

place of arrest to the Court of such Magistrate. The

aforesaid provision never intends to suggest taking of the

accused who was arrested for commission of non-

cognizable offence back to the Court concerning his case

situated at a long distance in another State by means of

BLAPL Nos.8402 of 2025 Page 13 of 24

quicker transport without following the provisions and

possibility of taking/producing the accused to/before such

nearest Court of Magistrate. It has been experienced that

in many cases, the police officers carrying out arrest in

another State bring back the arrestee and produce such

arrestee before the Magistrate in their own jurisdictional

Court which is possible because of quicker means of

transport, but this procedure cannot be countenanced

since it is not in accordance with law inasmuch as, right

to personal liberty of a person is his fundamental right

and the provisions as stated above and prescribed under

statutory law are not empty formalities, rather it provides

the arrestee/accused to seek redressal of his grievance

for bail before the competent Court. This is the precise

reason as to why the provision of bail is conceived in Sec.

57 of BNSS/56 of CrPC and 83 of BNSS/81 of CrPC.

9. In the above context, it is also apt to refer to

one communication vide No. 24013/33/Misc./2012-

CSR.III Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of

Home Affairs/Grih Mantralaya dated 16.05.2012

addressed to Chief Secretaries of all States which issues

BLAPL Nos.8402 of 2025 Page 14 of 24

interalia appropriate instruction in the matter by taking

into consideration the conduct of the police officers of

different States which reads as under:-

“It is seen that in many cases, the police

officers carrying out arrest in another State

bring back the arrested person and produce

him before the Magistrate in their own

jurisdiction. This may be possible because of

quicker means of transport and also because

the stipulated period of 24 hours excludes the

journey time. However, this procedure is

not in accordance with law . According to

Sec. 80 CrPC, a person arrested must be

produced before the Executive Magistrate or

the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the

Commissioner of Police within whose local

jurisdiction the arrest was made unless the

Court which issued the warrant is within

30 kilometers of the place of arrest or is

nearer than the Executive Magistrate or

the Deputy Superintendent of Police or the

Commissioner of Police within whose

jurisdiction the arrest was made. It is

emphasized that Section 80 CrPC must be

complied with in every case.”

10. Arrest definitely curtails the liberty of a person

which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution

of India, but such curtailment of liberty must be

according to procedure established by law, otherwise

such arrest cannot bear the seal of approval of law.

Besides, the sentence “every person who is arrested and

detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest

BLAPL Nos.8402 of 2025 Page 15 of 24

Magistrate within 24 hours” as contemplated under Article

22(2) of the Constitution of India is not only mandatory

in nature, but also it does not distinguish arrest with or

without warrant and the very use of word “nearest

Magistrate” makes it obligatory for the Arresting Officer

to produce the arrestee before a Magistrate within 24

hours exclusive of time necessary for the journey from

the place of arrest to the Court of Magistrate and at the

same time, it does not mean such nearest Magistrate to

be the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the case of the

arrestee. It is, therefore, mandatory for the Arresting

Officer to take such arrestee immediate after the arrest,

but not later than 24 hours to produce before a

Magistrate exclusive the time required for the journey,

but such Magistrate need not to be the jurisdictional

Magistrate, however, the arrestee must be produced

before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours

exclusive of journey by taking authorization of the

nearest Magistrate. The aforesaid compliance is

mandatory in nature.

BLAPL Nos.8402 of 2025 Page 16 of 24

11. On coming back to the case at hand, the IIC

Raighar Police Station in response to the order of the

Court seeking reply to the plea of the petitioner for his

illegal arrest and detention has come up with an affidavit

by stating inter alia the following in Paragrpahs-5, 6 &

7(reproduced in exact verbatim).

“5. That, it is further respectfully submitted

that, the then I.O left along with P.S staff to

Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh on 14.03.2024 at

11:00 PM and arrived at Vedarukupam, Dist-

Chitore, Andhra Pradesh (near about 1260

K.M.) on 16.03.2024 at 04:00 A.M. for

rescue the victim labour and apprehend

to alleged accused person . During course

of investigation she examined the victim

Manjulata Katual @ Bagh, aged 25, D/o-

Raibabu Bagh of Junani, P.S.- Raighar, Dist-

Nabarangpur, victim alleged one Vepanjeri

Dileep Kumar and his brother V. Bansilal

committed rape and capturing her video

recording. Thereafter, both the brother

threatening the victim not to disclose this fact

to anybody otherwise they will circulate the

video in the social media.

6. That, it is respectfully submitted that, the

I.O. conducted raid on 16.03.2024 and

apprehended the accused person namely

Vepanjeri Dileep Kumar at 4:00 P.M. and

interrogation the said accused person confess

his guilty but during apprehension of accused

his relatives and associate oppose the police

team for which, the police team due to

personal safety and security left this place

immediately with apprehended accused

person, as the local police did not co-

BLAPL Nos.8402 of 2025 Page 17 of 24

operate during legal procedure as per

law.

7. That, it is respectfully submitted that, the

I.O. left with victim and alleged accused

person on 16.03.2024 at 9:00 P.M. and

reached at Raighar P.S. on 18.03.2024 at

7:00 A.M. Due to medical procedure of

accused said I.O arrested the accused on

same date at 2:00 P.M. and forward to the

learned Court Grama Nayalaya, J.M.F.C.

Raighar, Dist- Nabarangpur on 19.03.2024

at 10:00 AM.”

12. It is, therefore, very clear from the affidavit as

referred to above that the petitioner was apprehended at

about 4PM on 16.03.2024 and the Police left for Raighar

at about 9PM on the same day, but reached at Raighar at

about 7AM on 18.03.2024 and the IO shown the accused

to be arrested at about 2PM on the same day i.e.

18.03.2024, however, forwarded the petitioner at about

10AM on 19.03.2024. The affidavit also makes it very

clear that the arrestee was neither produced before the

nearest Magistrate nor was taken to local police for

making any endorsement with regard to the date and

time of arrest and other necessary particulars in the diary

of the local police station and with regard to the

explanation offered for non-compliance of the

Constitutional provision as contemplated under Article

BLAPL Nos.8402 of 2025 Page 18 of 24

22(2) of the Constitution of India, which is mandatory in

nature, it is stated in the affidavit that due to opposition

of relatives and associates of the petitioner and non-

cooperation of local police, the police team for personal

safety and security left the place with apprehended

accused person(petitioner), however, such an explanation

does not justify for the apprehending police team for not

taking the petitioner to nearest Magistrate which is

mandatory and there is in fact no explanation at all

offered in the affidavit of the IIC with regard to petitioner

being not taken to nearest Magistrate immediate after his

arrest.

13. Be that as it may, the petitioner was

apprehended at 4PM on 16.03.2024, however, he was

formally shown to be arrested after reaching at Raighar

at about 2PM on 18.03.2024, but it is insignificant

whether the arrestee was formally shown to be arrested

at 2PM on 18.03.2024 when he was already apprehended

at 4PM on 16.03.2024. What is significant is that arrest

has not been defined either in BNSS or in any statute, but

how arrest is made has been provided in Sec. 43(1) of

BLAPL Nos.8402 of 2025 Page 19 of 24

BNSS/ Sec. 46 of CrPC and it is stated therein that in

making an arrest, the police officer or other person

making the same shall actually touch or confine the body

of the person to be arrested, unless there be a

submission to the custody by word or action. It is,

therefore, plain and simple that if the Officer arresting

the person touches or confines the latter, it can be said

that the said person (the latter) is arrested and such

person can also be said to have been arrested, if he

submits to the custody by word or action. However, the

“custody” and “arrest” are not synonymous and in every

arrest, there must be custody, but not vice versa, since a

person in custody may not be under arrest if he

voluntarily surrenders in Court. Further, the custody

means physical surrender of the person and even if a

person is not arrested, he can surrender in the Court, but

one thing is very clear that during custody in a criminal

matter, the person is considered to be in duress. It is,

however, very clear that if a person is either arrested or

confined in custody of a law enforcing agency, he is under

duress. Protection of life and personal liberty of a person

is the fundamental right of such person and Article 22 of

BLAPL Nos.8402 of 2025 Page 20 of 24

the Constitution of India provides protection against

arrest and detention in certain cases and, therefore, the

provision of Sec. 58 of BNSS/Sec. 57 of CrPC flows from

Article 22(2) which makes it mandatory that every person

who is arrested and detained in custody shall be

produced before the nearest Magistrate within a period of

twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time

necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the

Court of the Magistrate and no such person shall be

detained in custody beyond the said period without

the authority of a Magistrate.

14. Reverting back to the facts of the present

case, the apprehension of the petitioner at 4PM on

16.03.2024 is the time to be reckoned for the purpose of

Sec. 58 of BNSS/57 of CrPC and, therefore, the petitioner

was under custody from 4PM to 9PM on 16.03.2024

before the journey and the arrest time starts for the

purpose of calculating in terms of Sec. 58 of BNSS/57 of

CrPC and since the arresting team as per their own

version arrived at Raighar at 7AM in the morning on

18.03.2024, the detention period of the petitioner in

BLAPL Nos.8402 of 2025 Page 21 of 24

custody would continue thereafter w.e.f. 7AM till he was

produced in the jurisdictional Court at about 10AM on the

next date i.e. 19.03.2024 irrespective of his formal arrest

is being shown at 2PM on 18.03.2024. Thus, the

petitioner was in fact produced before the Court after 5

hours + 27 hours= Total 32 hours excluding the time of

journey from the place of arrest to the jurisdictional Court

which is beyond the 24 hours as provided under law and,

therefore, the arrest and detention of the petitioner can

be well considered to be illegal in violation of the

provision of Sec. 58 of BNSS/under Article 22(2) of the

Constitution of India. Once the arrest and detention of an

accused is found to be illegal, the necessary consequence

thereof has been well explained in Directorate of

Enforcement Vrs. Subash Sharma; 2025 SCC On

Line SC 240 wherein the Apex Court at Paragraph-8 has

held as under:-

8. Once a Court, while dealing with a bail

application, finds that the fundamental rights

of the accused under Articles 21 and 22 of

the Constitution of India have been

violated while arresting the accused or after

arresting him, it is the duty of the Court

dealing with the bail application to

release the accused on bail. The reason is

BLAPL Nos.8402 of 2025 Page 22 of 24

that the arrest in such cases stands vitiated.

It is the duty of every Court to uphold the

fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles

21 and 22 of the Constitution.”

In the aforesaid situation and facts and

failure of the police authority for not adhering to the

mandatory and statutory provision as prescribed U/S. 58

of BNSS/57 of CrPC read with Article 22(2) of the

Constitution of India which is the fundamental right of an

accused, the inevitable conclusion thereof necessitates

grant of bail to the petitioner.

15. Hence, the bail application of the Petitioner

stands allowed and he is allowed to go on bail on

furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

Thousand) with two solvent sureties each for the like

amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin

of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and

proper by it. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

16. In the situation as involved in this case

together with avoiding situation like this in future on

the face of conspectus of mandatory and statutory

provision as contemplated under Article 22(2) of the

Constitution of India read with Sections 57, 58, 78, 82

BLAPL Nos.8402 of 2025 Page 23 of 24

& 187 of BNSS together with its corresponding

provision of CrPC, the following guidelines are issued to

the State Administration and other stake holders to

bring fairness in the procedure of arrest, detention and

production of the accused before the Court in a case of

arrest without warrant outside the jurisdiction of the

Court for commission of cognizable offence.

Directions

(i) Whenever a person is arrested without warrant

outside the State or outside the jurisdiction of the

Court in a case for commission of cognizable

offence(s), and unless the jurisdictional Court is within

30 kilometers of the place of arrest and he cannot

ordinarily be produced before the jurisdictional Court

within 24 hours from the place of arrest, he shall

without unnecessarily delay be taken and produced

before the nearest Judicial Magistrate to satisfy the

compliance of constitutional and statutory right of the

accused as provided under Article 22 of the

Constitution of India and Sec. 36/47/48 of the BNSS

corresponding to Sec.41B/50/50A of CrPC.

(ii) The Arresting Officer after satisfying the

Magistrate about the formality as stated in preceding

paragraph shall be required to obtain a transit remand

for removing the arrestee immediately to jurisdictional

Court.

(iii) The officer making arrest shall follow all the

guidelines of arrest and detention of accused in

custody and may provide the information/notify the

local police about the arrest of the accused.

(iv)The officer arresting the accused without

warrant outside the State shall immediately inform the

date, time and place of arrest through electronic mode

such as e-mail and otherwise to the jurisdictional

Court who upon receipt of such information shall

reflect such information in the record and there upon

BLAPL Nos.8402 of 2025 Page 24 of 24

the jurisdictional Court shall later on satisfy itself for

compliance of the mandatory and statutory provision

of arrest and detention when the accused is produced

before it.

(v) the Arresting Officer effecting arrest outside

jurisdiction of the Court without warrant may take the

assistance of the local police, but he shall inform and

request the local police to make entry in the

concerned book the date, time and arrest of the

arrestee who was arrested without warrant.

(vi) the Arresting Officer on arrest of the

arrestee as per (i) of this guidelines shall forthwith

give the information regarding such arrest and the

place where the arrested person is being held to the

designated Police Officer in the district and to such

officer of another district where the accused person

normally resides.

A copy of this order be sent to Addl. Chief

Secretary, Home Department, Odisha/ DG of Police,

Odisha for compliance and the soft copy of order be

made available to all the criminal Courts of the State,

Director, Odisha Judicial Academy & Member Secretary,

OSLSA for guidance.

(G. Satapathy)

Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack,

Dated the 11

th

day of May, 2026/Kishore