Bachhu Majhi vs State Of Odisha

V. Narasingh, J

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The Petitioner is an accused in connection with C.T. Case No.148 of 2025 (Session), pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna, arising out of Bijepur P.S. Case No.05 of 2019, for commission of alleged offences U/s 302 of IPC.

Learned counsel, on instruction, submits that except the present BLAPL, no other bail application of the Petitioner relating to the aforementioned P.S. Case is pending in any other Court.

Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s. 483 of the BNSS by the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna by order dated 04.02.2026, the present BLAPL has been filed.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner assails the order also on the ground of infraction of Section 47 of BNSS and, in this regard, places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2531.

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand opposes such prayer and submits that in the case at hand there is no infraction of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah(supra) and in this context he relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradhesh, reported in, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228.

An affidavit has also been filed to fortify such stand and a copy thereof has been served on the learned counsel for the Petitioner.

The case of the prosecution is that the present Petitioner is involved in the death of one Purna Majhi for which Bijepur P.S. Case No.05 of 2019 was instituted wherein the Petitioner was named as the sole accused.

It is submitted by the learned counsel that, after investigation, charge sheet has been filed on 30.07.2021 citing the Petitioner as an absconder while mentioning his status. And, the prosecution, to drive home the accusation, has relied on 15 witnesses.

It is the case of the prosecution that, since the Petitioner was absconding, a warrant of arrest was issued by the learned Magistrate on 01.07.2026. Copy of the warrant of arrest is extracted hereunder:

Issuance of such warrant is also borne out from the arrest memo placed on record by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, which the same reads as under:

"xxx xxx xxx

ARREST MEMO

(As per section 35 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) Case Ref: CT No.385/2019 In The Court of SDJM Bhawanipatna, U/s-302 IPC, 1860

Name with Alias and Parentage of the Arrestee:

BACHU MAJHI (45)

S/O- LATE DEDU MAJHI

Mobile No./WhatsApp Mobile No./Email Address:

9827635572

Present Address of the Arrestee:

Of village Amtapadar (at/pre-Gadraguda) Ps- Bijepur Dist- Kalahandi

Permanent Address of the Arrestee:

-do-

FIR No./D.D. No. & Sec. of Law

CT No.385/2019, In the Court of SDJM Bhawanipatna

Place of Arrest

At on the near village Semibhatta under Bijepur P.S., Dist-Kalahandi

Date & Time of Arrest:

On 23.11.2025 at 1.10 PM

Name, Address, e-mail ID & Tel. No. Whomsoever to convey the Arrest

information

Intimation sent (T) WT message

Name, Rank & No. of the officer who making arrest

Samodar Kulisika ASI of Bijepur PS

Reasons/ Grounds of arrest

On the strength of NBW

a) Prevent Accused person from committing any further offence.

Yes

b) For proper investigation of the offence.

Yes

c) To prevent the Accused person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner.

Yes

d) To prevent such person from making any inducement threat or promise to any person acquainted the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court

or to the Police officer

Yes

e) As unless such person is arrested his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured.

xxx xxx xxx"

(emphasized)

In light of the above, this Court must first address the issue raised regarding the infraction of Section 47 of the BNSS, which is extracted hereunder:

"xxx xxx xxx

"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.

xxx xxx xxx" (emphasized)

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was arrested on 23.11.2025 and, considering the prospective nature of the judgment of the Apex Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), having been pronounced on 06.11.2025, the Petitioner is entitled to be released for infraction of the stipulation as contained in Section 47 of the BNSS.

It is apt to note that, while dealing with a case from Andhra Pradesh seeking a writ of habeas corpus on the ground of illegal arrest and detention by the CID, the Apex Court, in the case of Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra), considered the issue which, is akin to the case at hand.

In the said judgment, the Apex Court quoted extensively, with approval, from its earlier judgment in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269.

This Court can do no better than respectfully quote paragraph 15 of the judgment in Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra), which referred to the decision in Vihaan Kumar (supra):-

"xxx xxx xxx

The pathbreaking judgment of this Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269 serves as a pivotal reference point in Indian jurisprudence regarding the rights of individuals upon arrest. The judgment in Vihan Kumar (supra) has profound implications for the enforcement of Article 22 of the Constitution across the country. It underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding constitutional protections against arbitrary arrest and detention. This decision sets a clear precedent that the investigating agency/police officer/authorities effecting arrest of any person in connection with any cognizable offence without a warrant must provide specific, actionable reasons for an individual's arrest, beyond citing broad provisions of law. A clear dictum has been laid in Vihaan Kumar (supra) that the law enforcement agencies must exercise greater diligence in communicating the precise grounds of arrest in order to avoid unlawful detention claims. The decision further reinforces the right to legal recourse through habeas corpus petitions, empowering individuals to challenge the legality of their detention effectively.

xxx xxx xxx"

(emphasized)

Paragraph-36 of the said judgment reads as under:

"xxx xxx xxx

If a person is arrested on a warrant, the grounds for reasons for the arrest is the warrant itself; if the warrant is read over to him, that is sufficient compliance with the requirement that he should be informed of the grounds for his arrest.

xxx xxx xxx"

(emphasized)

It is trite that a judgment can be treated as a precedent for what it decides in the factual matrix of a particular case.

In this context, it is apposite to refer to the judgment in State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra, reported in AIR 1968 SC 647, wherein the Apex Court observed thus:-

"xxx xxx xxx

13.......A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it.

xxx xxx xxx"

In Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), the interplay between Section 47 of the BNSS and a non-bailable warrant was never a matter for consideration. Therefore, there is no gainsaying that Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) would automatically come into play in a case involving arrest on account of the issuance of a non-bailable warrant, as in the present case. And adopting such approach would be contrary to the settled principles of precedential jurisprudence. Legislative intent segregating arrest "with" and "without" warrant ought not to be tinkered with, falling prey to purposive interpretation, since the language of Section 47 of BNSS in itself being clear and unambiguous.

In the light of the discussion as above, since the Petitioner was taken into custody on execution of non-bailable warrant of arrest issued by the learned Magistrate in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra), the arrest and remand of the Petitioner cannot be said to be an infraction of Articles-21 and 22(1) of the Constitution.

Hence, the challenge mounted, on the ground of violation of Section 47 of BNSS, in the given facts of the present case has to be negated.

So far as the accusation against the present Petitioner is concerned, this Court has perused the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of one Pawan Majhi, CSW-5, who was accompanying the deceased. As well as, other statements on record, indicating the motive of the Petitioner.

As such, this Court is not inclined to entertain the bail application at this stage. The same accordingly stands rejected.

It shall be open for the Petitioner to renew his prayer before the learned Court in seisin after examination of Pawan Majhi, CSW-5, in the Trial.

It is needless to mention here that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of consideration of the bail application of the Petitioner, and the complicity of the Petitioner has to be established independently in the ongoing trial.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.