Back
: Ex-MLA Bikram Panda's Arrest for Non-Communication of
In a significant ruling underscoring the inviolability of constitutional safeguards, the granted to former Berhampur MLA Bikram Panda, holding that his arrest in a high-profile murder case was due to the police's failure to communicate written . Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, presiding over a single bench, declared that the arrest violated and the corresponding provisions of the .
A Murder That Shook Berhampur
The case stems from the killing of senior advocate and BJP leader Pitabash Panda on the night of . Two unknown assailants on a motorcycle shot him at close range near Kalyan Mandap as he returned home. Despite immediate hospitalization, he was declared brought dead at .
The investigation, led by the under SP supervision, uncovered a multi-layered conspiracy involving contract killers from Bihar and local criminals. Among those arrested was Bikram Panda, a former BJD MLA, who was taken into custody on , at 3:30 AM. The prosecution alleged he was a prime conspirator, acting out of political, personal, and professional enmity with the deceased.
The Core Legal Challenge: Written
From the outset, Panda's defense, led by Senior Advocates
and
, contended that his arrest was illegal. They argued that the
contained only a vague entry—
"In the strength of above noted case"
—in the '
' column, which failed to disclose specific accusations. This, they submitted, was a flagrant violation of the mandatory requirement under Article 22(1) and Sections 47 and 48 of BNSS to communicate
in writing.
The state prosecutor, Additional Government Advocate , countered that the police had prepared written grounds and orally explained them to Panda in Odia. He claimed Panda deliberately refused to sign the , and that his father was subsequently informed. The state argued that no prejudice was caused, as Panda was legally represented throughout.
Supreme Court Precedents: The Guiding Light
Justice Mohapatra meticulously examined the applicable law, placing heavy reliance on two recent Supreme Court judgments. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025), the Apex Court held that communication of is mandatory and that vague diary entries cannot substitute . It further ruled that when non-compliance is alleged, the burden lies on the arresting agency to prove compliance.
The court also drew from Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2026), which explicitly stated that must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in a language he understands, especially before production for . Any non-compliance renders the arrest and subsequent illegal.
Justice Mohapatra dismissed the state's argument that the requirement applied only prospectively, noting that the under Article 22(1) has always been in force and that the judgments merely clarified existing law.
'' Column: A Vague Entry That Betrays the Constitution
Scrutinizing the , the court observed that the column for contained only the notation: “In the strength of above noted case.” This, the court held, was constitutionally inadequate and did not meet the standard of meaningful communication.
“Nothing was brought on record to demonstrate that the in writing were ever communicated to the accused Petitioner. Moreover, a close scrutiny of the in respect of the accused Petitioner doesn't clearly indicate the or detention of the Petitioner.... Such factual backdrop doesn't inspire the confidence of this court with regard to communication of .”
The court further noted that the police's claim of oral communication to Panda's father was not supported by contemporaneous evidence. The father had allegedly been telephonically informed, but no written ground was supplied to him either.
Key Observations from the Judgment
Expounding on the importance of , Justice Mohapatra made several pivotal observations:
“A person cannot be deprived of his life or personal liberty strictly according to the procedure established by law only. The requirement of informing a person arrested of the is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement.”
“Even if the arrest of the petitioner stands , it will not affect the merits of the chargesheet and the pending trial. However, the filing of the will not validate a breach of under Article 22(1).”
Decision: Granted with Conditions
The court declared the arrest and ordered Panda's immediate release on . However, it clarified that this finding would not impact the pending trial. Panda was directed to furnish a bond under and comply with conditions, including not threatening or influencing the victim's family, the informant, or any prosecution witnesses. Any violation would lead to re-arrest.
In a notable act of judicial candor, the court regretted the delay in delivering the judgment, attributing it to the voluminous documents and the request for rehearing on legal points.
Beyond the Case: A Directive to the Police
Recognizing a pattern of non-compliance, the court directed the Registry to send a copy of the judgment to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, and the Director General of Police, Odisha. The authorities were tasked with circulating the Supreme Court's arrest guidelines to all police stations and arrest-empowered bodies, with strict instructions to adhere to them. This move signals the court's intent to enforce constitutional discipline in police procedures across the state.
