Orissa High Court
Najim Malik vs State Of Odisha … Opposite Party on 17 February, 2026
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL NO.11566 of 2025
(In the matter of application under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023).
Najim Malik ... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Manohar, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. M.R. Patra, Addl. PP
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:17.02.2026(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. 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:-
BLAPL No.11566 of 2025 Page 1 of 8
“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.
8. 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.”
2. In view of the aforesaid facts and taking
into consideration the personal appearance of the
concerned police officer through virtual mode and
BLAPL No.11566 of 2025 Page 2 of 8
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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
BLAPL No.11566 of 2025 Page 3 of 8
5. 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
BLAPL No.11566 of 2025 Page 4 of 8
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;
BLAPL No.11566 of 2025 Page 5 of 8
(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.”
6. 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
BLAPL No.11566 of 2025 Page 6 of 8
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.”
7. 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
BLAPL No.11566 of 2025 Page 7 of 8
Court has no other option left, but grant bail to the
petitioner.
8. 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.
9. 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.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 17th day of February, 2026/Subhasmita
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS
Designation: Sr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 18-Feb-2026 14:02:54
BLAPL No.11566 of 2025 Page 8 of 8
