Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
G.SATAPATHY
Sanjay Sahu – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa – Respondent
Judgment :
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNS S by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Plantsite PS Case No.1139 of 2025 corresponding to GR Case No.3929 of 2025 pending in the file of learned SDJM, Panposh, Rourkela for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.338/ 336(3)/ 340(2)/ 297(1)/ 318(4)/ 61(2) of r/w Section 7(3) of the Lottery Regulation Act , on the main allegation of running fake lottery business.
2. Heard, Mr. Himanshu Bhusan Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.C. Pradhan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record.
3. The Petitioner has in fact set up the plea for grant of bail for non-compliance of mandatory and statutory provision as laid down in Sec. 47 of BNSS /Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Pursuant to the application filed together with hearing the counsel for the Petitioner, since the Petitioner took such plea, this Court by relying upon the decision in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Another; 2025 (1) OLR (SC) 464, has passed order seeking for response of the IO by way of an affidavit to the plea of the Petitioner since the Petitioner has alleged non- compliance
An individual's right to be informed of the grounds for their arrest is essential, and failure to comply with statutory provisions renders the arrest invalid, justifying bail.
Accused's entitlement to written communication of arrest grounds was satisfied, negating bail claims under Constitutional and statutory provisions.
Non-compliance with the requirement to inform arrestees of grounds for arrest renders the arrest illegal, mandating release on bail.
Non-compliance with Section 47 of BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution vitiates arrest, justifying the grant of bail.
Non-compliance with arrest procedure under Article 22(1) of the Constitution violates fundamental rights and necessitates granting bail.
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 ....
Failure to communicate grounds of arrest renders it illegal, mandating the release of the accused.
Non-compliance with non-communication of arrest grounds is inapplicable retrospectively; independent witness requirement is not absolute in NDPS cases.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
