Non-Compliance With Mandatory Duty To Inform Grounds Of Arrest Under Section 47 BNSS Is Impermissible: Orissa High Court Grants Bail

"Total non-compliance of the provision of Sec.47 of BNSS is impermissible inasmuch as the same is made mandatory in Art.22(1) of the Constitution of India, " High Court of Orissa, in a significant ruling dated July 6, 2026, held that total non-compliance with the procedural mandate of communicating grounds of arrest under Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is legally impermissible.

A single-judge bench of Justice G. Satapathy observed that the constitutional duty cast upon an arresting officer to inform an arrestee of the grounds of arrest is mandatory under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The Court made these observations while setting aside orders that had previously refused bail to several appellants accused in a rioting and assault case.

The primary question before the court was whether the failure of the arresting officer to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing, as required under Section 47 of the BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution, vitiated the detention. The court was also called upon to determine if the appellants were entitled to bail considering they had been incarcerated for over one and a half years while the trial was yet to commence.

Mandatory Communication Of Grounds Of Arrest

The Court emphasized that the right of an arrested person to be informed of the grounds of arrest is not a mere formality but a constitutional protection. While examining the arrest memos, the bench noted that although the documents contained signatures, they were based on a "printed template format" that failed to enumerate the specific grounds for the arrest of each individual. The Court found that the mode and manner of communication were absent from both the arrest memos and the subsequent affidavits filed by the police.

Court Highlights Mandatory Nature Of Section 47 BNSS

The bench underscored that the new procedural law reinforces the constitutional mandate regarding the rights of the accused. It observed that the law casts a "constitutional duty on the arresting officer to inform the arrestee the grounds of arrest." The Court held that a failure to do so directly infringes upon the personal liberty of the individual as protected under the legal framework of the BNSS and the Constitution.

"Total non-compliance of the provision of Sec.47 of BNSS is impermissible inasmuch as the same is made mandatory in Art.22(1) of the Constitution of India."

Adherence To Supreme Court Guidelines

The Court relied on the recent Apex Court judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah Vrs. State of Maharashtra (2026), which established strict guidelines for the communication of grounds of arrest. The Court noted that the guidelines require such communication to be in writing and in a language the arrestee understands, preferably immediately or within two hours prior to production before a Magistrate. The bench found that the prosecution failed to provide evidence that these specific written communications were ever provided to the appellants.

No Pre-Meditation In Spontaneous Scuffle

Regarding the merits of the criminal charges, the Court observed that the incident appeared to have occurred on the spur of the moment during a festival celebration rather than being a result of prior planning. It noted that there was a counter-case lodged against the informant's side and that the appellants themselves had sustained injuries during the transaction. This lack of premeditation, coupled with the nature of the weapons used, weighed in favor of granting bail.

"The materials on record do not disclose anything to suggest that the incident took place with pre-meditation or prior planning, rather it was a circumstance of transaction on the spur of moment."

Right To Liberty And Speedy Trial

The Court highlighted that keeping persons in confinement for a prolonged period without the commencement of trial amounts to a deprivation of personal liberty under Article 21. Justice Satapathy noted that the appellants had already suffered incarceration for more than eighteen months. The bench reasoned that while the accusations were serious, they must be balanced against the fundamental right to a speedy trial and the presumption of innocence.

Bail Conditions To Prevent Witness Interference

While granting bail, the Court addressed the prosecution's concerns regarding the potential influence on witnesses. It held that such apprehensions can be managed by imposing stringent conditions rather than by continued detention. The Court directed that the appellants must not contact or threaten the informant or witnesses and must report to their jurisdictional police station fortnightly to ensure their availability for the upcoming trial.

The High Court allowed the criminal appeals and set aside the impugned orders of the Samalpur Sessions Court. By emphasizing the mandatory nature of Section 47 BNSS, the Court reinforced that procedural safeguards in the arrest process are non-negotiable components of the right to liberty. The appellants were directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing bonds of Rs. 50,000 each with solvent sureties.

Date of Decision: 06 July 2026