[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Mylapalli Mahesh @ Raj vs State Of Orissa ... Opposite Party on 8 April, 2026

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
              BLAPL NO.1523 of 2026

   (In the matter of application under Section 483 of
   BNSS, 2023).
   Mylapalli Mahesh @ Raj            ...           Petitioner
                          -versus-
   State of Orissa                   ...      Opposite Party

   For Petitioner           : Mr. D. Mohapatra, Advocate

   For Opposite Party       : Mr. T.K. Acharya, Addl. PP

          CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
    DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:08.04.2026(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS

by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with

Delanga PS Case No.379 of 2025 corresponding to GR

Case No.920 of 2025 pending in the file of learned JMFC,

Pipili, District-Puri for commission of offences punishable

U/Ss.137(2)/ 127(2)/ 296/ 115(2)/ 142(2)/ 143/ 146/

351(2)/3(5) of BNS, on the main allegation of illegally

kidnapping and trafficking two minor victims for the

purpose of employing in labour work.

2. Heard, Mr. Debidutta Mohapatra, learned

counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. T.K. Acharya, learned

Addl. Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the

record.

3. Admittedly, the Petitioner has set up plea

for bail to the Petitioner for want of compliance of the

provision of Sec. 47 of BNSS/Article 22(1) of the

Constitution of India, but in response to such plea, the

OIC, Delang PS, Puri pursuant to an order passed by this

Court on 16.03.2026 has filed an affidavit indicating

therein about compliance of Sec. 47 of BNSS by stating

inter alia in such affidavit the following:-

"It is humbly submitted that prior to arrest of the Petitioner, the police briefed him on the ground of arrest which has been reflected in the Case Diary No. XXIII and No. XXIV respectively as well as notice U/S. 47 of BNSS was issued to the petitioner in which the petitioner putting his signature. Copy of Notice U/S. 47 of BNSS is annexed herewith as Annexure-A."

The document under Annexure-A attached

to such affidavit reveals the following:-

"You are here by informed that you Mylapelli Mahesh @ Raj1, Bandamyasamma Nagar, Domalguda, Himayat Nagar, Hydrabad, A/p- Door No-7-12, Patel Nagar, Ramavarappadu, PS-Patamata, Vijaywada, Andharapradesh, Phone No-9966775916 was arrested on 25.11.2025 at 17:30 hours in Puri Delang PS Case No-379 dtd. 30.09.2025. U/S

137(2) BNS and being produced before the Hon'ble Court X Addl. Judicial First class Magistrate, Kukatpally on 26.11.2025. You are advised to prefer in bail."

4. On the other hand, the certified copy of

charge sheet together with memo of arrest and

inspection memo as supplied for the Petitioner reveal the

circumstance of arrest, in brief (Ground of Arrest) as

under:-

"As prima facie evidence well established against him U/Ss.137(2)/ 127(2)/ 296/ 115(2)/ 142(2)/ 143/ 146/249/ 351(2)/3(5) of BNS r/w Section 14 Child Labour Prohibition Act."

It is worthwhile to mention, the date and

time of arrest of the accused as found from the arrest

memo is 28.11.2025 at 9:00 AM which is surprisingly

not in confirmative with the notice issued to the

Petitioner by the Inspector of Police, Delang PS, Puri

under Annexure-A which reveals that the Petitioner was

arrested on 25.11.2025 at 17:30 hours and produced

before the Court of X Addl. Judicial First class

Magistrate, Kukatpally on 26.11.2025. For a

comparative scrutiny of the arrest memo and the notice

stated to be as issued U/S. 47 of BNSS, it appears that

the Police in order to cover up the communication of

grounds of arrest to the accused as directed in Sec. 47

of BNSS has prepared memo of arrest on 28.11.2025 by

showing the time of arrest of the Petitioner at 9:05 AM.

It is not possible for a Police Officer to arrest a person

twice in connection with the same case. Besides, neither

the arrest memo nor the notice purported to be issued

U/S. 47 of BNSS reveals about furnishing the grounds of

arrest to the accused-Petitioner in terms of the law laid

down by the Apex Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah Vrs.

State of Maharashtra; (2026) 1 SCC 500, wherein at

paragraph 62, the Apex Court has observed as under:-

"62. xx xxx xx in cases where the police are already in possession of documentary material furnishing a cogent basis for the arrest, the written grounds of arrest must be furnished to the arrestee on his arrest. However, in exceptional circumstances such as offences against body or property committed in flagrante delicto, while informing the grounds of arrest in writing on arrest each is rendered in practical, it shall be sufficient for the police officer or other person making the arrest to orally convey the same to the person at the time of arrest. Later, a written copy of grounds of arrest must be supplied to the arrested person within a reasonable time and in no event later than two hours prior to production of the arrestee before the

Magistrate for remand proceeding. The remand papers shall contain the grounds of arrest and in case there is delay in supply thereof, a note indicating a cause for it be included for the information of the Magistrate."

5. What would be the consequence of non-

compliance of Sec. 47 of BNSS/ Article 22(1) of the

Constitution of India has been laid down by the Apex

Court in Directorate of Enforcement vrs. Subash

Sharma; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 240, wherein at

Paragraph-8, the Apex Court has held as under:-

"8. Once a Court, while dealing with a bail application, finds that the fundamental rights of the accused under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India have been violated while arresting the accused or after arresting him, it is the duty of the Court dealing with the bail application to release the accused on bail. The reason is that the arrest in such cases stands vitiated. It is the duty of every Court to uphold the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution."

6. In view of the aforesaid facts and

discussion and taking into account the non-compliance

of Sec. 47 of BNSS/ Article 22(1) of the Constitution of

India and keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex

Court in Subash Sharma(supra) & Mihir Rajesh

Shah(supra), this Court has no other option left, but to

admit the Petitioner to bail.

7. Hence, the bail application of the Petitioner

stands allowed and he is allowed to go on bail on

furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty

Five Thousand) only with one solvent surety for the like

amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin