Orissa High Court
Rudra Madhab Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha … Opposite Party on 30 April, 2026
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL Nos.1474, 2314, 2396, 2867, 3066 of 2026
(In the matter of applications under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023).
Rudra Madhab Mohapatra ... Petitioners
(In BLAPL No.1474 of 2026)
Tapan Kumar Nayak
(In BLAPL No.2314 of 2026)
Pananga Narayan Dash @ Pinu
(In BLAPL No.2396 of 2026)
Smruti Ranjan Moharana @
Chandan
(In BLAPL No.2867 of 2026)
Subhransu Sagar Patra @ Milan
(In BLAPL No.3066 of 2026)
Mr. D.R. Mohapatra, Advocate
(in BLAPL No.1474 of 2026)
Mr. V. Verma, Advocate
(in BLAPL No.2314 of 2026)
Mr. C. Samantaray, Advocate
(in BLAPL No.2396 of 2026)
Mr. S.R. Rout, Advocate
(in BLAPL No.2867 of 2026)
Mr. R.K. Pattanaik, Advocate
(in BLAPL No.3066 of 2026)
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
Mr. S.C. Pradhan, Addl. PP
CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING :23.04.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:30.04.2026
G. Satapathy, J.
1. Since these five bail applications arise out of
one and same case record, the same are heard together
and disposed of by this common order with the consent of
the learned counsel for the parties.
BLAPL Nos.1474, 2314, 2867, 2396 & 3066 of 2026
Page 1 of 15
2. These five bail applications are U/S.483 of
BNSS Act by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection
with Cyber Crime & Economic Offences, UPD Cuttack PS
Case No. 05 of 2026 corresponding to GR Case No.39 of
2026 pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions
Judge-cum-Special Judge(Vigilance), Cuttack/JMFC-I
(Cog. Taking), Cuttack for commission of offences
punishable U/Ss. 318(4)/ 319(2)/ 338/ 336(3)/ 340(2)/
112/ 61(2) of BNS r/w Sec.66(C)(D) of IT Act.
3. The gist of the allegation against the
petitioners is for opening up fake business accounts by
using mobile phones, debit cards and other electronic
instruments of some persons without their knowledge
and subsequently, using such mule bank accounts for
transfer of illegal funds through multiple bank accounts.
On this issue, an FIR was lodged and registered in
Cyber Crime & Economic Offences, UPD Cuttack vide
FIR No.05 of 2026 and finding the involvement of the
petitioners, they were taken into custody ultimately
landing them in this Court in these bail applications.
BLAPL Nos.1474, 2314, 2867, 2396 & 3066 of 2026
Page 2 of 15
4. Heard Mr. Dipti Ranjan Mohapatra, learned
counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 1474 of 2026
and Mr. Virendra Verma, learned counsel appearing
virtually for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 2314 of 2026,
Mr. Chandan Samantaray, learned counsel for the
petitioner in BLAPL No. 2396 of 2026, Mr. Smruti
Ranjan Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner in
BLAPL No. 2867 of 2026, Mr. Ramani Kanta Pattanaik,
learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 3066 of
2025 and Mr. S.C. Pradhan, learned Addl. PP in the
matter and perused the record together with the
written instruction as submitted by the Inspector of
Police Cyber Crime & EOPS, Cuttack UPD.
4.1. Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the
petitioner in BLAPL No. 2314 of 2026 submits that no
scientific evidence has been collected in this case and
all the offences alleged against the petitioner are
punishable maximum up to imprisonment for seven
years and thereby, the petitioner could have been let
off with a notice U/S. 35(3) of BNSS in terms of the
principle of law laid down in a plethora of decisions, but
BLAPL Nos.1474, 2314, 2867, 2396 & 3066 of 2026
Page 3 of 15
that has not been complied with. Mr.Verma in addition,
also submits that the principal accused Bablu Nayak
has already been enlarged on bail, but the petitioner is
languishing in custody since long and in the meantime,
charge sheet has already been submitted. More or less
is the submission advanced by Mr.Smruti Ranjan Rout,
learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 2867 of
2026. Mr.Ramani Kanta Pattanaik, leaned counsel for
the petitioner-Subhransu Sagar Patra @ Milan,
however, strongly submits that none of the depositor
has come forward to allege against the petitioner, but a
police officer has lodged the FIR and how come the
police officer knew what has happened to the
depositors and, therefore, the very foundation of the
case is unacceptable, but the petitioner is in custody
since 28.01.2026 and principal accused as well as the
accused persons named in the FIR having already been
enlarged on bail, at least the principle of parity be
extended to the petitioners.
5. On coming to the question of compliance of
Sec.47 of BNSS as advanced for some of the petitioners
BLAPL Nos.1474, 2314, 2867, 2396 & 3066 of 2026
Page 4 of 15
for grant of bail, the aforesaid provision not only
appears to be the statutory mandate, but also
emanates from the constitution of India as a
safeguard/protection against arrest and detention and
non-compliance thereof not only vitiates the arrest or
remand of the accused, but also allows the authority to
release the accused on bail. Sec.47 of BNSS makes it
imperative for the arresting officer to forthwith
communicate the arrestee, who was arrested without
warrant, the particulars of the offence(s) for which he is
arrested or other grounds of arrest. This is not only the
statutory right of the accused person, but also his
fundamental right as guaranteed under Article 22(1) of
the Constitution of India, which provides for “Protection
against arrest and detention in certain cases” and it is
guaranteed therein that 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. In addition, Sec.48 of
BLAPL Nos.1474, 2314, 2867, 2396 & 3066 of 2026
Page 5 of 15
BNSS, which is pari materia to Sec.50-A of CrPC reads
as under:-
“48 BNSS. Obligation of person making
arrest to inform about arrest, etc., to
relative or friend-(1) Every police officer or
other person making any arrest under this
Sanhita shall forthwith give the information
regarding such arrest and place where the
arrested person is being held to any of his
relatives, friends or such other persons
as may be disclosed or nominated by the
arrested person for the purpose of giving
such information and also to the designated
police officer in the district.
(2) The police officer shall inform the arrested
person of his rights under sub-section (1) as
soon as he is brought to the police station.
(3) An entry of the fact as to who has been
informed of the arrest of such person shall be
made in a book to be kept in the police
station in such form as the State Government
may, by rules, provide.
(4) It shall be the duty of the Magistrate
before whom such arrested person is
produced to satisfy himself that the
requirements of sub-section (2) and sub-
section (3) have been complied with in
respect of such arrested person.
6. The above referred provisions, however,
make it mandatory for compliance, but the mode and
manner of compliance of such provisions has only been
laid down by the Apex Court through authoritative
judicial pronouncements. Why compliance of such
BLAPL Nos.1474, 2314, 2867, 2396 & 3066 of 2026
Page 6 of 15
provision as provided in Sec.47 of BNSS is to be made
in writing has been well explained by the Apex Court at
paragraph-47 in Mihir Rajesh Shah Vrs. State of
Maharashtra; (2026) 1 SCC 500, wherein it is held
thus:-
“47. Another aspect, which flows from the
above discussion and merits consideration is
the mode of informing grounds of arrest
to the arrested person to effectively serve the
intended purpose of Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India. This Court, as observed
above, had held that it would not be ideal
to read out the grounds of arrest to a
person who is arrested, as he may not be
in the frame of mind to remember the
contents of grounds that are read out to
him. The Court underscored that if the
authorities are permitted to read out the
grounds and claim compliance with the
constitutional and statutory mandate, the
very purpose of the constitutional
protection would be nugatory.
7. Further, with regard to the compliance of
Sec.48 of BNSS, the Apex Court at paragraph 56 in
Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) has held thus:-
“56. It would not be out of context now to
refer to an obligation which has been imposed
on a person making arrest, as provided under
Section 50A read in relation to Section 50 of
the CrPC 1973 (now Section 48 and 47 of
BNSS 2023 respectively), to inform the
arrestee of his right to indicate his relative,
friend or such other person for the purpose of
giving information with regard to his arrest.
BLAPL Nos.1474, 2314, 2867, 2396 & 3066 of 2026
Page 7 of 15
Simultaneously, a duty has also been cast on
the person making arrest to forthwith
thereafter inform of such arrest with reasons
and the place where the arrested person is
being held to the such indicated person. The
police officer/person making any arrest shall
make an entry of the fact as to who has
been informed of such an arrest in a book
to be kept in the police station. Further
protection in this regard is reflected when a
duty has been cast on the magistrate to
satisfy himself, when the arrestee is produced
before him, that the above requirement stands
complied with. This requirement is in addition
to the rights of an arrestee to be made aware
of the grounds of arrest.”
8. How, the compliance of Sec.47 of BNSS
can be made has been lucidly explained by the Apex
Court at paragraph-62 of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra)
which reads as under:-
“62. We thus hold, that, in cases where the
police are already in possession of documentary
material furnishing a cogent basis for the arrest,
the written grounds of arrest must be furnished
to the arrestee on his arrest. However, in
exceptional circumstances such as offences
against body or property committed in flagrante
delicto, where informing the grounds of arrest in
writing on arrest is rendered impractical, it shall
be sufficient for the police officer or other person
making the arrest to orally convey the same to
the person at the time of arrest. Later, a
written copy of grounds of arrest must be
supplied to the arrested person within a
reasonable time and in no event later than two
hours prior to production of the arrestee before
the magistrate for remand proceedings. The
BLAPL Nos.1474, 2314, 2867, 2396 & 3066 of 2026
Page 8 of 15
remand papers shall contain the grounds of arrest
and in case there is delay in supply thereof, a
note indicating a cause for it be included for the
information of the Magistrate.”
9. In the context of non-compliance of Sec.47
of BNSS, it is considered apt to state here that after
making a threadbare discussions and analysis of the
earlier rulings, the Apex Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah
(supra) has recorded its conclusion at 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.”
BLAPL Nos.1474, 2314, 2867, 2396 & 3066 of 2026
Page 9 of 15
10. It is of course relevant to note here that in
Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), the Apex Court in
paragraph-67 and 68 has observed as under:-
“67. After having come to the above
conclusion, it is pertinent to note that the
provision of law under Section 50 of CrPC
(Section 47 of BNSS 2023) does not provide
for a specific mode of or time frame for
communication of the grounds of arrest to the
person arrested. This Court in Prabir
Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi);
(2024) 8 SCC 254 held that the grounds of
arrest be conveyed to the arrestee in writing in
all offences at the earliest, which means it
need not be given at the time of arrest but
within a reasonable time thereafter, for
offences under all the statutes, which period
would be as has been laid down above in this
order.
68. We are cognizant that there existed no
consistent or binding requirement mandating
written communication of the grounds of
arrest for all the offences. Holding as
above, in our view, would ensure
implementation of the constitutional rights
provided to an arrestee as engrafted under
Article 22 of the Constitution of India in an
effective manner. Such clarity on obligation
would avoid uncertainty in the administration
of criminal justice. The ends of fairness and
legal discipline therefore demand that this
procedure as affirmed above shall govern
arrests henceforth.”
11. In the present case at hand, the FIR was in
fact registered on 09.01.2026 and the arrests of the
BLAPL Nos.1474, 2314, 2867, 2396 & 3066 of 2026
Page 10 of 15
petitioners are, therefore, made in this case subsequent
to 09.01.2026, but the written communication of
grounds of arrest is to apply prospectively from the
date of judgment of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) in
terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court thereon
in paragraph-68. However, the petitioners-Rudra
Madhab Mohapatra and Pananga Narayan Dash @ Pinu
have set up plea for grant of bail to them for want of
compliance of Sec.47 of BNSS, but the affidavit filed by
the IO-cum-Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime &
Economic Offences, UPD Cuttack Police Station albeit
claims for compliance of Sec. 47 of BNSS, but on a
careful perusal of the record together with the Case
Diary as produced before this Court, there was in fact
no compliance of Sec.47 of BNSS in respect of
petitioner-Rudra Madhab Mohapatra and all that
appears from the Case Diary that there is no mention
about the date and time of arrest of petitioner Rudra
Madhab Mohapatra, so also for the petitioner- Pananga
Narayan Dash @ Pinu and Smruti Ranjan Moharana @
Chandan. It is no doubt true that the petitioners-Tapan
BLAPL Nos.1474, 2314, 2867, 2396 & 3066 of 2026
Page 11 of 15
Kumar Nayak and Subhransu Sagar Patra @ Milan have
not set up the plea for grant of bail for want of
compliance of Sec.47 of BNSS, but it appears from the
Case Diary that the grounds of arrest were explained to
each of them clearly and unambiguously and the family
members/ employers/ relatives of the accused persons
were duly informed of their arrest and involvement in
this case in accordance with Sec.47 of BNSS. By and
large, nowhere it has been reflected either in the
affidavit or in the Case Diary or record that a written
copy of grounds of arrest were furnished to the
arrestees immediate after their arrest or two hours
prior to their production before the Magistrate/ Court
for remand proceedings.
12. The conspectus of provisions of law as
contained in Sec.47 & 48 of BNSS read with Article
22(1) of the Constitution of India makes it imperative
for the Arresting Officer to inform the grounds of arrest
to the arrestee and Sec.48 of BNSS makes it obligatory
for the Arresting Officer to forthwith give the
information relating to arrest in case where the accused
BLAPL Nos.1474, 2314, 2867, 2396 & 3066 of 2026
Page 12 of 15
person is being held, to any of his friends, relatives or
such other persons as may be disclosed or nominated
by the arrested person for the purpose of giving such
information. Besides, it is the duty of the Magistrate
before whom such arrested person is produced to
satisfy himself that the requirement of Sub-Section 2 &
3 have been complied with in respect of such arrested
person. These provisions are not empty formality, but
statutory duty cast on the authorities concerned
because the liberty of a person is priceless and violation
thereof cannot be compensated in terms of money. In
the wake of aforesaid, more particularly when there is
absolutely no compliance U/S.47/48 of BNSS r/w
Art.22(1) of the Constitution of India, all the petitioners
are entitled to be released on bail for non-compliance of
the statutory as well as mandatory provisions.
13. Even otherwise, it appears that the Police
official has lodged the FIR against one Bablu Nayak @
Babulu, who has already been granted bail by the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vig),
Cuttack for non-compliance of Sec.47 of BNSS. In the
BLAPL Nos.1474, 2314, 2867, 2396 & 3066 of 2026
Page 13 of 15
meantime, after completion of investigation, charge
sheet has already been submitted, but the offences as
alleged against the petitioners are in fact triable by
Magistrate, no matter the offences U/S.338/340 of BNS
as alleged against the petitioners provides maximum
punishment for imprisonment of life. Further, some of
the other co-accused persons have already been
granted bail.
14. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and taking into account the mode and manner of
implication of the petitioners in this case and regard
being had to their pre-trial detention coupled with
failure of the Arresting Officer to comply Sec.47/48 of
BNSS together with Article 22(1) of Constitution of
India, this Court considers it proper to grant bail to the
each petitioners.
15. Hence, these five bail applications of the
petitioners namely Rudra Madhab Mohapatra (In BLAPL
No.1474 of 2026); Tapan Kumar Nayak (In BLAPL
No.2314 of 2026; Pananga Narayan Dash @ Pinu (In
BLAPL No.2396 of 2026); Smruti Ranjan Moharana @
BLAPL Nos.1474, 2314, 2867, 2396 & 3066 of 2026
Page 14 of 15
Chandan (In BLAPL No.2867 of 2026) and Subhransu
Sagar Patra @ Milan (In BLAPL No. 3066 of 2026) are
allowed and each of the petitioners is allowed to go on
bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand) 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.
16. Accordingly, these BLAPLs stand disposed
of. A soft copy of this judgment 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 30thday of April, 2026/S.Sasmal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHASMITA SASMAL BLAPL Nos.1474, 2314, 2867, 2396 & 3066 of 2026
Designation: Jr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication Page 15 of 15
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 30-Apr-2026 14:52:08
