IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL NO.11566 of 2025 (In the matter of application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023).

Najim Malik … Petitioner -versus-

State of Odisha … Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. S. Manohar, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. M.R. Patra, Addl. PP CORAM:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:17.02.2026(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. Pursuant to an order passed by this Court on 11.02.2026, the concerned police officer namely Rameswar Padhan at present DSP, Bargarh filed an affidavit tendering apology by expressing regret for the language used in the written instruction provided by him. In paragraphs-7 and 8 of the affidavit, he has inter-alia stated as under:-

“7. That it is humbly submitted that the compliance in reference to order of the Hon’ble Court directing my appearance and explanation regarding the written instruction submitted in the above noted matter. At the outset, I most respectfully submit that there was no intention on my part to use any language, that could be constituted as derogatory or unbecoming, for which, I beg apology and I sincerely express my regret for the same. The same was neither deliberate nor intended to show any disrespect. This deponent has the highest regard for this Hon’ble Court and holds their Lordships in high esteem.

8. That it is humbly submitted that I assure the Hon’ble Court that I shall remain more careful in future while drafting any official communication and will maintain the dignity expected from the Court.”

2. In view of the aforesaid facts and taking into consideration the personal appearance of the concerned police officer through virtual mode and tendering unqualified apology for the same, the appearance of the concerned police officer namely Rameswar Padhan stands dispensed with and he is, hereby, advised to remain careful in future not to repeat the same again in the matters of the Court.

3. This BLAPL is an application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Podia PS Case No.10 of 2025 corresponding to Special GR Case No.22 of 2025 pending in the file of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.20(b)(ii)(C)

& 29 of NDPS Act.

4. Heard, Mr. Shyam Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Patra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record together with the affidavit of one Rameswar Padhan, the then arresting officer and at present DSP, Bargarh along with copy of arrest memo under Annexure-A and copy of detailed report of this case under Annexure-B.

5. The petitioner primarily seeks for bail for want of compliance of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India/Section 47 of BNSS (Section 50 of CrPC) for not informing his grounds of arrest. 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, Section 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, but a careful scrutiny of the arrest memo produced in this case, it appears that the arrestee was informed of the circumstances of arrest in brief (grounds of arrest) in the following words “In connection with the above referred case”. However, Section 47 of BNSS makes it not only mandatory, but also obligatory for the arresting officer to inform the grounds of arrest to the arrestee in writing in the language he understands immediate after the arrest or if not possible, just two hours before th