Non-compliance with the requirement to inform arrestees of grounds for arrest renders the arrest illegal, mandating release on bail.

JUDGMENT :

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.

2. These three applications U/S.483 of BNS S 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 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 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 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 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 /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 /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 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 complian