Najim Malik vs State Of Odisha

G. Satapathy, J

Pursuant to an order passed by this Court on 11.02.2026, the concerned police officer namely Rameswar Padhan at present DSP, Bargarh filed an affidavit tendering apology by expressing regret for the language used in the written instruction provided by him. In paragraphs-7 and 8 of the affidavit, he has inter-alia stated as under:-

“7. That it is humbly submitted that the compliance in reference to order of the Hon’ble Court directing my appearance and explanation regarding the written instruction submitted in the above noted matter. At the outset, I most respectfully submit that there was no intention on my part to use any language, that could be constituted as derogatory or unbecoming, for which, I beg apology and I sincerely express my regret for the same. The same was neither deliberate nor intended to show any disrespect. This deponent has the highest regard for this Hon’ble Court and holds their Lordships in high esteem.

That it is humbly submitted that I assure the Hon’ble Court that I shall remain more careful in future while drafting any official communication and will maintain the dignity expected from the Court.”

In view of the aforesaid facts and taking into consideration the personal appearance of the concerned police officer through virtual mode and tendering unqualified apology for the same, the appearance of the concerned police officer namely Rameswar Padhan stands dispensed with and he is, hereby, advised to remain careful in future not to repeat the same again in the matters of the Court.

This BLAPL is an application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Podia PS Case No.10 of 2025 corresponding to Special GR Case No.22 of 2025 pending in the file of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.20(b)(ii)(C) & 29 of NDPS Act.

Heard, Mr. Shyam Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Patra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record together with the affidavit of one Rameswar Padhan, the then arresting officer and at present DSP, Bargarh along with copy of arrest memo under Annexure-A and copy of detailed report of this case under Annexure-B.

The petitioner primarily seeks for bail for want of compliance of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India/Section 47 of BNSS (Section 50 of CrPC) for not informing his grounds of arrest. According to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India which provides for “Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases”, 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. Similarly, Section 47 of BNSS which provides for “person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail”, states 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 for such arrest, but a careful scrutiny of the arrest memo produced in this case, it appears that the arrestee was informed of the circumstances of arrest in brief (grounds of arrest) in the following words “In connection with the above referred case”. However, Section 47 of BNSS makes it not only mandatory, but also obligatory for the arresting officer to inform the grounds of arrest to the arrestee in writing in the language he understands immediate after the arrest or if not possible, just two hours before the production of the arrestee in the Court. It seems that the compliance of aforesaid provision is not an empty formality, rather it is the fundamental right of an accused against his detention in custody and it cannot be whittled away/brushed aside lightly by merely saying that the said provision has been complied without any further document. In order to establish the compliance of the aforesaid provision, it is advisable for the arresting officer to obtain an acknowledgement from the detainee about the information of grounds of his arrest in writing in the language he understands and merely stating or mentioning that the grounds of arrest has been informed to the detainee is not sufficient compliance. In this regard, this Court is fortified with the decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah Vrs. State of Maharashtra; (2026) 1 SCC 500, wherein the Apex Court has summarized its conclusion in paragraph-66, which reads as under:-

“66. In conclusion, it is held that:

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 BNSS 2023);

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.”

Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it is reasonably found that the compliance has not been done in letter and spirit of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India/Section 47 of BNSS (Section 50 of CrPC), but what would be the inevitable conclusion, if such compliance is not done has been reiterated in Directorate of Enforcement Vrs. Subash Sharma; 2025 SCC OnLine 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 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 view of the above facts and taking into account the non-compliance of mandatory provision as guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India/Section 47 of BNSS (Section 50 of CrPC), this Court has no other option left, but grant bail to the petitioner.

Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only 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. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. A soft copy of this order be immediately communicated to the concerned Court, who shall afterwards communicate the same to the concerned Jail through e-mail for reference.