The court held that non-compliance with written communication of grounds of arrest does not invalidate arrests prior to established precedent, affirming that detailed merit analysis is not warranted in bail considerations.

JUDGMENT :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. Since these three bail applications arise out of one and same case record, the same are taken up together and disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. These are the bail applications U/S.483 of BNS S by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Tihidi PS Case No.197 of 2025 corresponding to GR Case No.1190 of 2025 pending in the file of learned SDJM, Bhadrak for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.126(2)/293/118(2)/109/351(2)/3(5) of , on the main allegation of committing murder of one Santosh Parida by assaulting him conjointly with lathis, along with co-accused persons in furtherance of their common intention.

3. Heard Mr. Lalatendu Samantaray, learned Senior Counsel who is being assisted by Mr.Pratik Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 1016 of 2026; Mr.Susanta Kumar Baral, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 1494 of 2026; Mr.Sk. Zafarulla, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 2296 of 2026 and Mr. C.Mohanty, learned Addl. PP in the matter and perused the record.

4. Bail to the petitioners is in fact sought for mainly on the ground of release of two co-accused persons for want of compliance of Sec. 47 of BNSS and on merit, but compliance and non-compliance of Sec. 47 of would be governed by the communication of grounds of arrest to an accused, however, earlier there is no precise mode of written communication of such grounds of arrest to an accused, but the Apex Court after making a threadbare discussion on the topic and provision of law and upon referring to different citations has laid down some principles in Mihir Rajesh Shah Vrs. State of Maharashtra ; (2026) 1 SCC 500 wherein it has been held at Paragraph-68 as under:-

“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.”

5. On a plain reading of the aforesaid principle as laid down by Apex Court makes it apparent clear that the written communication of grounds of arrest to the accused would apply to the arrest prospectively from the date of the judgment as rendered in Mihir Rajesh Shah(supra) which was passed on 06.11.2025, but the present case demonstrate arrest of the petitioners much prior to 06.11.2025 and in such circumstance, it appears to the Court that the learned trial Court has not committed illegality in refusing to grant bail to the petitioners for non-compliance of Sec. 47 of BNS S which was in fact according to the trial Court has been duly complied with. Be that as it may, on coming back to the points on merit, it is, however, submitted for the petitioners that there was allegation against 20 persons for assaulting the deceased and how come three injuries would be attributed to 20 persons, if they conjointly assaulted the deceased by means of sticks, but law is fairly well settled that detail and meticulous analysis of evidence and elaborate documentation on merit should be avoided at the stage of consideration of bail. Whether 20 persons can conjointly assault a person and three injuries can be attributed to the accused persons, are definitely question of facts which can be gone into in the trial. Additionally, the petitioners have been implicated in this case with ai