Orissa High Court
Matal @ Pramodnayak @ Naik 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 Nos.9180, 9328 & 12939 of 2025
(In the matter of applications under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023).
Matal @ PramodNayak @ Naik ... Petitioners
(In BLAPL No.9180 of 2025)
Purna Chandra Prusty
(In BLAPL No.9328 of 2025)
ShibaDakua
(In BLAPL No.12939 of 2025)
Mr. K. Mohanty, Advocate
(in BLAPL No.9180 of 2025)
Mr. D. Panda, Advocate
(in BLAPL No.9328 of 2025)
Mr. B.K. Behera, Advocate
(in BLAPL No.12939 of 2025)
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
Mr. P. Satpathy, Addl. PP
CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
F DATE OF HEARING &JUDGMENT:17.02.2026
G. Satapathy, J.
1. Since these three bail applications arise out
of one and same case record, the same are taken up &
heard together and disposed of by this common order
with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
BLAPL Nos.9180 of 2025 & Other cases Page 1 of 9
2. These three applications U/S.483 of BNSS
by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with GR
Case No. 796 of 2025 arising out of NayagarhSadar PS
Case No. 178 of 2025 pending in the file of learned SDJM,
Nayagarh for commission of offences punishable
U/Ss.310(2)/311/111(3) of the BNS r/w Sections 25/27 of
the Arms Act, on the main allegation of committing
robbery of Rs.27,00,000/- from Indian Bank, Mandhatapur
in Nayagarh District.
3. Heard Mr. Kuldeep Mohanty, learned
counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.9180 of 2025; Mr.
Devashis Panda, learned counsel appearing virtually in
BLAPL No.9328 of 2025; Mr. Bijay Kumar Behera,
learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.12939 of
2025 and Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Addl. PP in the matter
and perused the record.
4. Admittedly all the three petitioners seek for
bail for want of communication of grounds of arrest as
mandated under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of
India/ Sec.47 of BNSS which are in fact mandatory in
BLAPL Nos.9180 of 2025 & Other cases Page 2 of 9
nature. 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, Sec.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. There is no
doubt that the IO in his affidavit at paragraph 6 states
that at the time of arrest, the petitioner Purna Chandra
Prusty was well informed about his involvement in crime
and after knowing very well, the document prepared for
his arrest memo and he has also put his signature which
itself proves that the petitioner is well acknowledged
about his arrest by the investigating agency in
BLAPL Nos. 9180 of 2025 & Other casesPage 3 of 9
connection with the above reference case, but a careful
perusal of the arrest memo which is produced in support
of compliance of Sec.47 of BNSS/Article22(1) of the
Constitution of India, 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 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. In order to establish
the compliance of the aforesaid statutory/constitutional
provision, it is advisable for the arresting officer to
BLAPL Nos.9180 of 2025 & Other cases Page 4 of 9
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/communicated to the detainee is not sufficient
compliance. Same procedure is repeated in the arrest
memos of other two petitioners namely Matal@ Pramod
Nayak @ Naik and Shiba Dakua which is evident from a
plain perusal of their arrest memos.
5. In Mihir Rajesh Shah Vrs. State of
Maharashtra; (2026) 1 SCC 500, 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 includingoffences under IPC,
1860 (now BNSS 2023);
66.2.The grounds of arrest must be
communicated in writing to thearrestee in
the language he/she understands;
BLAPL Nos. 9180 of 2025 & Other casesPage 5 of 9
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 of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of
India/Section 47 of BNSS (Section 50 of CrPC) have not
been done in letter and spirit, 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 IndiaBLAPL Nos.9180 of 2025 & Other cases Page 6 of 9
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. Hence, the bail applications of the
petitioners Matal @ PramodNayak @ Naik in BLAPL
No.9180 of 2025; Purna Chandra Prusty in BLAPL
No.9328 of 2025 and ShibaDakua in BLAPL No.12939 of
2025 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.
8. Accordingly, the BLAPL Nos.9180, 9328 &
12939 of 2025 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,
BLAPL Nos. 9180 of 2025 & Other casesPage 7 of 9
who shall afterwards communicate the same to the
concerned Jail through e-mail for reference.
9. It is very high time to prevent such
violation of mandatory provisions inasmuch as the
offender may take the benefit of the non-compliance of
the aforesaid mandatory statutory requirements which is
very much evident in this case and this Court has come
across in so many cases about violations/infractions of
the aforesaid provisions under Article 22(1)/Sec.47 of
the BNSS (Sec.50 of CrPC) only enuring to the benefit of
the offender to get out of the custody mainly on
technical grounds. 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. 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 8 of 9
Constitution of India/Sec.47 of BNSS, which can be
obviated by giving proper training to the concerned
police officers. 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. A copy of the order be immediately
communicated to Director General of Police and Principal
Secretary to Home Department, Odisha for compliance.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 17th day of February, 2026/Jayakrushna
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASH
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 18-Feb-2026 19:29:59
BLAPL Nos. 9180 of 2025 & Other casesPage 9 of 9
