Failure To Communicate Grounds Of Arrest In Writing Violates Mandatory Statutory & Constitutional Provisions: Orissa High Court Grants Bail

 "The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands," Orissa High Court has held that the failure of an arresting officer to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing to an accused, in a language they understand, constitutes a violation of Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

A single-judge bench of Justice G. Satapathy observed that such communication is a mandatory constitutional provision enuring to the benefit of the petitioner for the grant of bail.

The court made these observations while hearing a bail application filed by an individual accused of facilitating cybercrime through the creation of "mule" bank accounts. The bench noted that while the Investigating Officer claimed compliance through a standard arrest memo, the record lacked evidence of the grounds of arrest being furnished in writing as required by law.

The petitioner, Rakesh Choudhury, was arrested in connection with a case registered by the Cyber Crime & Economic Offences Police Station, Cuttack. It was alleged that the petitioner opened fake business accounts using the mobile phones and debit cards of unsuspecting individuals. These "mule accounts" were subsequently used for the illegal transfer of funds through multiple transactions.

Following his arrest for offences punishable under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Information Technology Act, the petitioner moved the High Court seeking bail under Section 483 of the BNSS.

The primary question before the court was whether the arresting officer had complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 47 of the BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution regarding the communication of the grounds of arrest. The court was also called upon to determine if a printed template "Arrest/Court surrender memo" satisfies the legal threshold for informing an arrestee of the reasons for their detention.

Mandatory Requirement Of Written Communication

The Court emphasized that Section 47 of the BNSS, read with Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, makes it imperative for an arresting officer to inform the arrestee of the grounds of arrest. The bench clarified that this information must be provided in writing and in a language that the accused understands.

The court scrutinised the affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer, which claimed that the statutory provisions had been followed. However, the bench found that the materials on record did not evidence any written communication of the specific grounds of arrest to the petitioner at the time of his apprehension.

Template Arrest Memos Found Insufficient - Court Rejects Generic Checklists As Compliance

Upon reviewing the "Arrest/Court surrender memo" furnished as Annexure A/1 to the State's affidavit, the Court observed that it was a printed template format. While the signatures of the petitioner and the arresting officer were present, the document failed to establish that the petitioner was actually informed in writing about the specific grounds for his arrest.

The bench noted that the mere existence of a signed template does not satisfy the "lucidly explained" legal requirements established by the higher judiciary. The Court held that the failure to provide the detailed reasons for arrest in writing effectively vitiated the procedural safeguards guaranteed to the accused.

Apex Court Guidelines On Grounds Of Arrest

Justice Satapathy relied heavily on the legal position clarified by the Supreme Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah Vrs. State of Maharashtra (2026). The High Court specifically extracted paragraph 66.2 of the said judgment to reiterate the mandatory nature of the procedure.

The bench underscored the Apex Court's conclusion that the "grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands." The Court found that in the present case, the arresting officer had failed to comply with this mandatory constitutional provision.

Taking into account the failure of the arresting officer to comply with the provisions of Section 47 of the BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution, the Court deemed it proper to grant bail to the petitioner. The bench observed that the breach of these fundamental procedural requirements weighed in favour of the applicant's release.

The bail application was allowed on the condition that the petitioner furnishes a bail bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties for the like amount. The Court directed that the release would be subject to such other terms and conditions as the trial court might deem fit and proper.

Date of Decision: 24 June 2026