Rudra Madhab Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party
2026 Latest Caselaw 4001 Ori

Orissa High Court

Rudra Madhab Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 30 April, 2026

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
  BLAPL Nos.1474, 2314, 2396, 2867, 3066 of 2026
   (In the matter of applications under Section 483 of
   BNSS, 2023).
  Rudra Madhab Mohapatra              ...       Petitioners
  (In BLAPL No.1474 of 2026)
  Tapan Kumar Nayak
  (In BLAPL No.2314 of 2026)
  Pananga Narayan Dash @ Pinu
  (In BLAPL No.2396 of 2026)
  Smruti Ranjan Moharana @
  Chandan
  (In BLAPL No.2867 of 2026)
  Subhransu Sagar Patra @ Milan
  (In BLAPL No.3066 of 2026)
                           Mr. D.R. Mohapatra, Advocate
                              (in BLAPL No.1474 of 2026)
                                  Mr. V. Verma, Advocate
                              (in BLAPL No.2314 of 2026)
                            Mr. C. Samantaray, Advocate
                              (in BLAPL No.2396 of 2026)
                                 Mr. S.R. Rout, Advocate
                              (in BLAPL No.2867 of 2026)
                             Mr. R.K. Pattanaik, Advocate
                              (in BLAPL No.3066 of 2026)
                           -versus-
  State of Odisha                       ...       Opposite Party

                                  Mr. S.C. Pradhan, Addl. PP
              CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
                 DATE OF HEARING :23.04.2026
                 DATE OF JUDGMENT:30.04.2026
G. Satapathy, J.

1. Since these five bail applications arise out of

one and same case record, the same are heard together

and disposed of by this common order with the consent of

the learned counsel for the parties.

BLAPL Nos.1474, 2314, 2867, 2396 & 3066 of 2026

2. These five bail applications are U/S.483 of

BNSS Act by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection

with Cyber Crime & Economic Offences, UPD Cuttack PS

Case No. 05 of 2026 corresponding to GR Case No.39 of

2026 pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions

Judge-cum-Special Judge(Vigilance), Cuttack/JMFC-I

(Cog. Taking), Cuttack for commission of offences

punishable U/Ss. 318(4)/ 319(2)/ 338/ 336(3)/ 340(2)/

112/ 61(2) of BNS r/w Sec.66(C)(D) of IT Act.

3. The gist of the allegation against the

petitioners is for opening up fake business accounts by

using mobile phones, debit cards and other electronic

instruments of some persons without their knowledge

and subsequently, using such mule bank accounts for

transfer of illegal funds through multiple bank accounts.

On this issue, an FIR was lodged and registered in

Cyber Crime & Economic Offences, UPD Cuttack vide

FIR No.05 of 2026 and finding the involvement of the

petitioners, they were taken into custody ultimately

landing them in this Court in these bail applications.

BLAPL Nos.1474, 2314, 2867, 2396 & 3066 of 2026

4. Heard Mr. Dipti Ranjan Mohapatra, learned

counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 1474 of 2026

and Mr. Virendra Verma, learned counsel appearing

virtually for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 2314 of 2026,

Mr. Chandan Samantaray, learned counsel for the

petitioner in BLAPL No. 2396 of 2026, Mr. Smruti

Ranjan Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner in

BLAPL No. 2867 of 2026, Mr. Ramani Kanta Pattanaik,

learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 3066 of

2025 and Mr. S.C. Pradhan, learned Addl. PP in the

matter and perused the record together with the

written instruction as submitted by the Inspector of

Police Cyber Crime & EOPS, Cuttack UPD.

4.1. Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the

petitioner in BLAPL No. 2314 of 2026 submits that no

scientific evidence has been collected in this case and

all the offences alleged against the petitioner are

punishable maximum up to imprisonment for seven

years and thereby, the petitioner could have been let

off with a notice U/S. 35(3) of BNSS in terms of the

principle of law laid down in a plethora of decisions, but

BLAPL Nos.1474, 2314, 2867, 2396 & 3066 of 2026

that has not been complied with. Mr.Verma in addition,

also submits that the principal accused Bablu Nayak

has already been enlarged on bail, but the petitioner is

languishing in custody since long and in the meantime,

charge sheet has already been submitted. More or less

is the submission advanced by Mr.Smruti Ranjan Rout,

learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 2867 of

2026. Mr.Ramani Kanta Pattanaik, leaned counsel for

the petitioner-Subhransu Sagar Patra @ Milan,

however, strongly submits that none of the depositor

has come forward to allege against the petitioner, but a

police officer has lodged the FIR and how come the

police officer knew what has happened to the

depositors and, therefore, the very foundation of the

case is unacceptable, but the petitioner is in custody

since 28.01.2026 and principal accused as well as the

accused persons named in the FIR having already been

enlarged on bail, at least the principle of parity be

extended to the petitioners.

5. On coming to the question of compliance of

Sec.47 of BNSS as advanced for some of the petitioners

BLAPL Nos.1474, 2314, 2867, 2396 & 3066 of 2026

for grant of bail, the aforesaid provision not only

appears to be the statutory mandate, but also

emanates from the constitution of India as a

safeguard/protection against arrest and detention and

non-compliance thereof not only vitiates the arrest or

remand of the accused, but also allows the authority to

release the accused on bail. Sec.47 of BNSS makes it

imperative for the arresting officer to forthwith

communicate the arrestee, who was arrested without

warrant, the particulars of the offence(s) for which he is

arrested or other grounds of arrest. This is not only the

statutory right of the accused person, but also his

fundamental right as guaranteed under Article 22(1) of

the Constitution of India, which provides for "Protection

against arrest and detention in certain cases" and it is

guaranteed therein that no person who is arrested shall

be detained in custody without being informed, as soon

as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he

be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a

legal practitioner of his choice. In addition, Sec.48 of

BLAPL Nos.1474, 2314, 2867, 2396 & 3066 of 2026

BNSS, which is pari materia to Sec.50-A of CrPC reads

as under:-

"48 BNSS. Obligation of person making arrest to inform about arrest, etc., to relative or friend-(1) Every police officer or other person making any arrest under this Sanhita shall forthwith give the information regarding such arrest and place where the arrested person is being held to any of his relatives, friends or such other persons as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person for the purpose of giving such information and also to the designated police officer in the district.

(2) The police officer shall inform the arrested person of his rights under sub-section (1) as soon as he is brought to the police station. (3) An entry of the fact as to who has been informed of the arrest of such person shall be made in a book to be kept in the police station in such form as the State Government may, by rules, provide.

(4) It shall be the duty of the Magistrate before whom such arrested person is produced to satisfy himself that the requirements of sub-section (2) and sub-

section (3) have been complied with in respect of such arrested person.

6. The above referred provisions, however,

make it mandatory for compliance, but the mode and

manner of compliance of such provisions has only been

laid down by the Apex Court through authoritative

judicial pronouncements. Why compliance of such

BLAPL Nos.1474, 2314, 2867, 2396 & 3066 of 2026

provision as provided in Sec.47 of BNSS is to be made

in writing has been well explained by the Apex Court at

paragraph-47 in Mihir Rajesh Shah Vrs. State of

Maharashtra; (2026) 1 SCC 500, wherein it is held

thus:-

"47. Another aspect, which flows from the above discussion and merits consideration is the mode of informing grounds of arrest to the arrested person to effectively serve the intended purpose of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. This Court, as observed above, had held that it would not be ideal to read out the grounds of arrest to a person who is arrested, as he may not be in the frame of mind to remember the contents of grounds that are read out to him. The Court underscored that if the authorities are permitted to read out the grounds and claim compliance with the constitutional and statutory mandate, the very purpose of the constitutional protection would be nugatory.

7. Further, with regard to the compliance of Sec.48 of BNSS, the Apex Court at paragraph 56 in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) has held thus:-

"56. It would not be out of context now to refer to an obligation which has been imposed on a person making arrest, as provided under Section 50A read in relation to Section 50 of the CrPC 1973 (now Section 48 and 47 of BNSS 2023 respectively), to inform the arrestee of his right to indicate his relative, friend or such other person for the purpose of giving information with regard to his arrest. BLAPL Nos.1474, 2314, 2867, 2396 & 3066 of 2026

Simultaneously, a duty has also been cast on the person making arrest to forthwith thereafter inform of such arrest with reasons and the place where the arrested person is being held to the such indicated person. The police officer/person making any arrest shall make an entry of the fact as to who has been informed of such an arrest in a book to be kept in the police station. Further protection in this regard is reflected when a duty has been cast on the magistrate to satisfy himself, when the arrestee is produced before him, that the above requirement stands complied with. This requirement is in addition to the rights of an arrestee to be made aware of the grounds of arrest."

8. How, the compliance of Sec.47 of BNSS

can be made has been lucidly explained by the Apex

Court at paragraph-62 of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra)

which reads as under:-

"62. We thus hold, that, 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, where informing the grounds of arrest in writing on arrest is rendered impractical, 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 proceedings. The BLAPL Nos.1474, 2314, 2867, 2396 & 3066 of 2026

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."

9. In the context of non-compliance of Sec.47

of BNSS, it is considered apt to state here that after

making a threadbare discussions and analysis of the

earlier rulings, the Apex Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah

(supra) has recorded its conclusion at paragraph-66,

which reads as under:-

"66. In conclusion, it is held that:

66.1. The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes including offences under IPC, 1860 (now BNSS 2023);

66.2. The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands; 66.3. In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it be so done orally. The said grounds be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the Magistrate.

66.4. In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to be set free."

BLAPL Nos.1474, 2314, 2867, 2396 & 3066 of 2026

10. It is of course relevant to note here that in

Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), the Apex Court in

paragraph-67 and 68 has observed as under:-

"67. After having come to the above conclusion, it is pertinent to note that the provision of law under Section 50 of CrPC (Section 47 of BNSS 2023) does not provide for a specific mode of or time frame for communication of the grounds of arrest to the person arrested. This Court in Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi); (2024) 8 SCC 254 held that the grounds of arrest be conveyed to the arrestee in writing in all offences at the earliest, which means it need not be given at the time of arrest but within a reasonable time thereafter, for offences under all the statutes, which period would be as has been laid down above in this order.

68. We are cognizant that there existed no consistent or binding requirement mandating written communication of the grounds of arrest for all the offences. Holding as above, in our view, would ensure implementation of the constitutional rights provided to an arrestee as engrafted under Article 22 of the Constitution of India in an effective manner. Such clarity on obligation would avoid uncertainty in the administration of criminal justice. The ends of fairness and legal discipline therefore demand that this procedure as affirmed above shall govern arrests henceforth."

11. In the present case at hand, the FIR was in

fact registered on 09.01.2026 and the arrests of the

BLAPL Nos.1474, 2314, 2867, 2396 & 3066 of 2026

petitioners are, therefore, made in this case subsequent

to 09.01.2026, but the written communication of

grounds of arrest is to apply prospectively from the

date of judgment of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) in

terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court thereon

in paragraph-68. However, the petitioners-Rudra

Madhab Mohapatra and Pananga Narayan Dash @ Pinu

have set up plea for grant of bail to them for want of

compliance of Sec.47 of BNSS, but the affidavit filed by

the IO-cum-Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime &

Economic Offences, UPD Cuttack Police Station albeit

claims for compliance of Sec. 47 of BNSS, but on a

careful perusal of the record together with the Case

Diary as produced before this Court, there was in fact

no compliance of Sec.47 of BNSS in respect of

petitioner-Rudra Madhab Mohapatra and all that

appears from the Case Diary that there is no mention

about the date and time of arrest of petitioner Rudra

Madhab Mohapatra, so also for the petitioner- Pananga

Narayan Dash @ Pinu and Smruti Ranjan Moharana @

Chandan. It is no doubt true that the petitioners-Tapan

BLAPL Nos.1474, 2314, 2867, 2396 & 3066 of 2026

Kumar Nayak and Subhransu Sagar Patra @ Milan have

not set up the plea for grant of bail for want of

compliance of Sec.47 of BNSS, but it appears from the

Case Diary that the grounds of arrest were explained to

each of them clearly and unambiguously and the family

members/ employers/ relatives of the accused persons

were duly informed of their arrest and involvement in

this case in accordance with Sec.47 of BNSS. By and

large, nowhere it has been reflected either in the

affidavit or in the Case Diary or record that a written

copy of grounds of arrest were furnished to the

arrestees immediate after their arrest or two hours

prior to their production before the Magistrate/ Court

for remand proceedings.

12. The conspectus of provisions of law as

contained in Sec.47 & 48 of BNSS read with Article

22(1) of the Constitution of India makes it imperative

for the Arresting Officer to inform the grounds of arrest

to the arrestee and Sec.48 of BNSS makes it obligatory

for the Arresting Officer to forthwith give the

information relating to arrest in case where the accused

BLAPL Nos.1474, 2314, 2867, 2396 & 3066 of 2026

person is being held, to any of his friends, relatives or

such other persons as may be disclosed or nominated

by the arrested person for the purpose of giving such

information. Besides, it is the duty of the Magistrate

before whom such arrested person is produced to

satisfy himself that the requirement of Sub-Section 2 &

3 have been complied with in respect of such arrested

person. These provisions are not empty formality, but

statutory duty cast on the authorities concerned

because the liberty of a person is priceless and violation

thereof cannot be compensated in terms of money. In

the wake of aforesaid, more particularly when there is

absolutely no compliance U/S.47/48 of BNSS r/w

Art.22(1) of the Constitution of India, all the petitioners

are entitled to be released on bail for non-compliance of

the statutory as well as mandatory provisions.

13. Even otherwise, it appears that the Police

official has lodged the FIR against one Bablu Nayak @

Babulu, who has already been granted bail by the

learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vig),

Cuttack for non-compliance of Sec.47 of BNSS. In the

BLAPL Nos.1474, 2314, 2867, 2396 & 3066 of 2026

meantime, after completion of investigation, charge

sheet has already been submitted, but the offences as

alleged against the petitioners are in fact triable by

Magistrate, no matter the offences U/S.338/340 of BNS

as alleged against the petitioners provides maximum

punishment for imprisonment of life. Further, some of

the other co-accused persons have already been

granted bail.

14. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances

and taking into account the mode and manner of

implication of the petitioners in this case and regard

being had to their pre-trial detention coupled with

failure of the Arresting Officer to comply Sec.47/48 of

BNSS together with Article 22(1) of Constitution of

India, this Court considers it proper to grant bail to the

each petitioners.

15. Hence, these five bail applications of the

petitioners namely Rudra Madhab Mohapatra (In BLAPL

No.1474 of 2026); Tapan Kumar Nayak (In BLAPL

No.2314 of 2026; Pananga Narayan Dash @ Pinu (In

BLAPL No.2396 of 2026); Smruti Ranjan Moharana @ BLAPL Nos.1474, 2314, 2867, 2396 & 3066 of 2026

Chandan (In BLAPL No.2867 of 2026) and Subhransu

Sagar Patra @ Milan (In BLAPL No. 3066 of 2026) are

allowed and each of the petitioners is allowed to go on

bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees

Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety for the like

amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin

of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit

and proper by it.

16. Accordingly, these BLAPLs stand disposed

of. A soft copy of this judgment be immediately

communicated to the concerned Court, who shall

afterwards communicate the same to the concerned Jail

through e-mail for reference.

(G. Satapathy) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 30thday of April, 2026/S.Sasmal

Signed by: SUBHASMITA SASMAL BLAPL Nos.1474, 2314, 2867, 2396 & 3066 of 2026

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 30-Apr-2026 14:52:08