Written Communication Of Grounds Of Arrest Not Mandatory For Arrests Prior To SC's 'Mihir Rajesh Shah' Judgment: Orissa High Court

"The provision of law for communicating the grounds of arrest to the arrestee in writing be made applicable prospectively to the arrest after 06.11.2025 as held by the Apex Court." Orissa High Court, in a significant ruling dated July 27, 2026, held that the mandatory requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing to an accused applies only prospectively from November 6, 2025, following the Supreme Court's verdict in the Mihir Rajesh Shah case.

A single-judge bench of Justice G. Satapathy observed that an arrest made prior to this date cannot be vitiated merely on the ground that physical, written grounds of arrest were not supplied to the accused, provided the accused was made aware of the allegations.

The petitioner, Bishal Singh, was arrested on February 7, 2024, for allegedly transporting over 420 kg of contraband Ganja in a Bolero pick-up vehicle. He approached the High Court seeking bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. His sole ground for seeking bail was the alleged non-compliance with Section 47 of BNSS read with Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, arguing that his arrest and remand were vitiated because he was not served with written grounds of arrest immediately upon being taken into custody.

The primary question before the court was whether the failure to supply written grounds of arrest to an accused arrested before November 2025 constitutes total non-compliance of Section 47 of BNSS, thereby vitiating the arrest. The court was also called upon to determine whether the Supreme Court's mandate requiring the written communication of arrest grounds applies retrospectively to prior arrests.

Delay In Raising The Plea Of Non-Compliance

Justice G. Satapathy noted at the outset that the petitioner was arrested in February 2024 but completely failed to raise the plea of non-compliance during his earlier remand stages. The court observed that the petitioner enjoyed numerous opportunities to agitate this issue before the remanding court and the High Court on three previous occasions. Instead, he chose to raise the technical plea for the first time after a gap of two years in his recent bail application.

Purpose Of Informing Grounds Of Arrest

Delving into the constitutional safeguards afforded to an arrestee, the bench underscored that the fundamental purpose of informing the grounds of arrest is to protect the individual from illegal detention and to apprise them of the allegations. The court distinctly observed that the petitioner never claimed he was unaware of the accusations leveled against him; rather, his solitary grievance was that the grounds were not served in written form.

Arrest Memo Disclosed Offences And Circumstances

The court carefully examined the affidavit filed by the Arresting Officer, which clarified that a prima-facie case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act was made out. The officer explained the grounds of arrest to the accused orally in his own language at the time of the arrest. Furthermore, a detailed arrest memo was prepared which disclosed the offences and the circumstances of the arrest, which was duly signed by the petitioner and countersigned by the officer.

No Total Non-Compliance Of Section 47 BNSS

Differentiating between complete failure and defective compliance, the High Court referred to its own earlier jurisprudence holding that total non-compliance with Section 47 of BNSS is impermissible. However, in the present factual matrix, the bench concluded that the preparation of the signed arrest memo and the oral explanation of charges negated the petitioner's claim of total statutory non-compliance. The court emphasized that the petitioner never claimed any prejudice at the time of his initial production before the magistrate.

Supreme Court Mandate Operates Prospectively

Addressing the core legal argument regarding written communication, the High Court relied upon the Supreme Court's landmark pronouncement in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra. The apex court in that judgment had explicitly recognized that, historically, there existed no consistent or binding requirement mandating the written communication of grounds of arrest for all offences.

"The ends of fairness and legal discipline therefore demand that this procedure as affirmed above shall govern arrests 'henceforth'."

Written Grounds Not Mandatory For Prior Arrests

Relying on the explicit use of the word "henceforth" by the Supreme Court, Justice Satapathy ruled that the legal obligation to provide written grounds of arrest is strictly prospective. Since the petitioner was arrested in February 2024, much prior to the Supreme Court delivering its judgment on November 6, 2025, the new procedural mandate could not be applied retroactively.

Finding the petitioner's sole technical plea unworthy of acceptance, the court concluded that the arrest and subsequent remand were not vitiated. The High Court consequently rejected the bail application and directed that a copy of the order be immediately transmitted to the trial court in seisin over the matter.

Date of Decision: 27 July 2026