Written Grounds Of Arrest Mandatory Under Article 22(1) And BNSS Section 47; Orissa High Court Directs DGP, Home Department To Train Police Officers
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Orissa High Court Single Bench of Justice G. Satapathy has granted bail to three accused persons in a bank robbery case after finding that the arresting police failed to properly communicate the grounds of arrest as required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The Court noted recurring non-compliance with these mandatory requirements, observing that such lapses aid hardened criminals in challenging arrests, and directed the State’s top police and home officials to ensure training and issue instructions to prevent repetition.
The matter arose from allegations of robbery involving ₹27,00,000 from Indian Bank, Mandhatapur in Nayagarh district. The police registered Nayagarh Sadar PS Case No.178 of 2025, which was later taken up as GR Case No.796 of 2025 before the SDJM, Nayagarh. The accused were charged under Sections 310(2), 311, and 111(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
The petitioners filed bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, contending that their arrest was illegal due to non-communication of grounds of arrest as mandated under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of BNSS. The arrest memos produced by the investigating officer stated only “under the strength of above noted case” without specifying the offences or grounds in a language understood by the detainees. The prosecution submitted affidavits claiming that the accused were informed of their involvement and had signed the arrest memos. The petitioners argued that this did not satisfy the statutory requirement of communication of grounds of arrest.
Justice G. Satapathy recorded that Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of BNSS mandate communication of grounds of arrest. The Court stated: “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.”
The Court examined the arrest memo and observed: “It is stated therein in column number 5 as ‘Grounds of arrest: - Under the strength of above noted case’. It is no more res-integra that the grounds of arrest must be communicated to the arrestee in writing in the language he understands immediate after his arrest or just two hours before his production in the Court of law.”
The Court further stated: “The compliance as required U/S.47 of BNSS/Article 22(1) of Constitution of India has not been done in this case because the arrest memo only reflects about the sentence ‘under the strength of above noted case’. Further, neither the arrest memo contains the particular of the offences nor the grounds of such arrest in any column nor can it be said that the grounds of arrest has been communicated to the arrestee in writing in the language he understands.”
The Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and quoted: “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). The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands.”
The Court also cited Directorate of Enforcement v. Subash Sharma and recorded: “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.”
The Court directed: “Hence, the bail applications of the petitioners… stand allowed and the petitioners are allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only with one solvent surety 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.”
In many cases, this Court has come across non-compliance of grounds of arrest as mandated under Article 22(1) of the BLAPL Nos. 9180 of 2025 & Other cases Page 9 of 9 Constitution of India/Sec.47 of BNSS, which can be obviated by giving proper training to the concerned police officers. The Court further directed: “It is, therefore, considered appropriate to inform the Director General of Police, Odisha and the Principal Secretary to Home Department, Odisha to sufficiently train the police officers making arrest to comply the mandatory provisions of law, otherwise many hardened criminal will escape by taking this route, which is not in the interest of justice.”
The Court added: “Accordingly, this Court requests the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Odisha and Director General of Police to bestow personal attention on this aspect to train the police officers and issue suitable instruction/circular to avoid this kind of situation for non-compliance of the aforesaid mandatory provisions.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. K. Mohanty, Advocate; Mr. D. Panda, Advocate; Mr. B.K. Behera, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. P. Satpathy, Addl. PP
Case Title: Matal @ Pramod Nayak @ Naik & Ors. v. State of Odisha
Case Number: BLAPL Nos.9180, 9328 & 12939 of 2025
Bench: Justice G. Satapathy
