[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Akash Kori @ Kasua vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 23 February, 2026

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
              BLAPL NO.11721 of 2025
   (In the matter of application under Section 483 of
   BNSS, 2023).
   Akash Kori @ Kasua            ...         Petitioner
                           -versus-

   State of Odisha                     ...   Opposite Party

   For Petitioner           : Mr. B.P. Tripathy, Sr.
                              Advocate along with Mr.
                              S.S. Tripathy, Advocate

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

       CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

    DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:23.02.2026(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

STF, CID, CB, Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No. 08 of 2025

corresponding to Special G.R. Case No. 14 of 2025

pending in the file of learned Special Judge, Sonepur,

for commission of offences punishable

U/Ss.20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, on the main

allegation of transporting 295Kgs 55Grams of

Contraband Ganja in a Creta car bearing Regd. No. OD-

17-L-0074.

2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Biraja Prasad

Tripathy, learned Senior Counsel, who is being assisted

by Mr. Shyam Sundar Tripathy, learned counsel for the

petitioner raises following few points for consideration

of bail petition of the petitioner:-

(i) the petitioner was not found in exclusive possession of Contraband article;

(ii) the petitioner was produced before the Court beyond 24 hours in gross violation of Sec.58 of BNSS/57 CrPC and lastly;

(iii) the grounds of arrest was not communicated to the petitioner in violation of Sec.47 of BNSS/50 CrPC.

3. On the other hand, Mr. T.K. Acharya,

learned Addl. PP while refuting such submission

contends that not only the petitioner was found in

exclusive possession of any Contraband article, but also

he was duly communicated with the grounds of his

arrest and he having been met with an accident, he

was initially admitted to the hospital with intimation to

the Court and thereby, his remand to the custody is

deemed to have taken place with prior permission of

the Court and there is no question of violation of Sec.47

& 58 of BNSS by the arresting officer who has duly

complied the mandatory provisions of law. Further, Mr.

Acharya submits that since the petitioner has not been

able to satisfy the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act, his

bail application may kindly be rejected.

4. After having considered the rival

submissions upon perusal of record, there appears not

only allegation against the petitioner for transporting

295.55Kgs of Contraband Ganja which is well above the

commercial quantity in the vehicle, but also the

Investigating Agency collected materials in the form of

CDR and SDR analysis about the petitioner remaining

present at the spot, however, on a careful scrutiny of

the materials placed on record, since the quantity of

Contraband Ganja allegedly recovered with allegation of

nexus of the petitioner with such transportation of

Contraband article, the further scrutiny that is required

is as to whether the petitioner is required to satisfy the

conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act in this case at hand.

Before dwelling upon such question on merit, this Court

considers it proper to address the submission as

advanced by Mr. Tripathy and moving to the challenge

of the petitioner for not producing him in the Court

within 24 hours, it appears from the certified copy of

the order sheet of the concerned Court as produced

that the Arresting Officer after detaining the present

petitioner on 25.03.2025 at about 9.40P.M. has

intimated the Court for taking the petitioner to hospital

for his treatment, which was duly acknowledged by the

learned Special Judge, Sonepur in-charge and thereby,

it can be automatically considered that the Special

Judge, Sonepur has permitted the Investigating Agency

to get the petitioner treated at the hospital, inasmuch

as treatment for the detainee-petitioner was necessary

and most important at that time, otherwise there might

be risk for life to the detainee-petitioner. It further

found from the record that the detainee-petitioner after

being treated at hospital was produced in the Court on

01.04.2025 and was remanded to custody, but at the

time of production, the detainee-petitioner has not

raised any objection before the concerned Court with

regard to his confinement beyond 24 hours at the

hospital. Be that as it may, Sec. 187 of BNSS/167 of

CrPC provides procedure when an investigation cannot

be completed within twenty-four hours. Sec. 187 of

BNSS/167 of CrPC states that whenever any person is

arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that

the investigation cannot be completed within the period

of twenty-four hours fixed by section 58 BNSS/57 CrPC

and there are grounds for believing that the accusation

or information is well-founded, the officer in charge of

the police station or the police officer making the

investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-

inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest

Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter

specified relating to the case, and shall at the same

time forward the accused to such Magistrate. In this

case, the intimation of the Investigating Officer about

providing treatment to the petitioner which is essential

and necessary at that time can constitute the deemed

remand for the treatment of the accused in custody and

the production of papers as prescribed U/S. 187 of

BNSS/167 of CrPC which is found from the order sheet

of the learned Special Court justifies such remand.

Further, the petitioner while being produced in the

Court at the time of his remand to judicial custody has

raised no objection or ill-treatment in custody by the

police. In the aforesaid circumstance, it is, therefore, in

the considered view of the Court that there is no

violation of Sec.58 of BNSS/57 of CrPC.

5. Moving to the next challenge of the

petitioner for want of communication of grounds of

arrest, it appears that the certified copy of arrest memo

as produced discloses at column No. 4 the

circumstances of arrest in brief which reads as under:

"4. As prima facie evidence U/s. 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985/ Sec.341(3)/341(4)/336 of BNS is well made out against above noted accused in this case."

In the circumstance, a brief reference to the

provision of Sec.47 of BNSS/50 of CrPC reveals that

every police officer or other person arresting any

person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to

him full particulars of the offence for which he is

arrested or other grounds for such arrest. The aforesaid

reference as made by the Arresting Officer in column-4

of the arrest memo clearly justifies the communication

of grounds of arrest in terms of provisions of Sec.47 of

BNSS/50 of CrPC, but another point was raised in this

regard that since the petitioner was a Hindi speaking

person, he should have been informed of his grounds of

arrest in the language he understands, but the

petitioner had not raised any objection with regard to

communication of grounds of arrest to him in the

language he understands at the time of his production

in the Court nor was it stated by him then about non-

communication of grounds of arrest to him nor had he

stated to be not knowing about his grounds of arrest

and thereby, the petitioner has not shown any

prejudice caused to him at the time of arrest and the

aforesaid plea of non-communication of grounds of

arrest in the language he understands has been taken

by the petitioner subsequently in bail application before

this Court for the first time after around ten months of

his detention of his custody. Besides, no where it is

stated or brought to the notice of the Court that the

petitioner does not understand the language English for

the purpose of compliance of Sec.47 of BNSS/50 of

CrPC and he was not communicated with the grounds

of arrest, more particularly when the arrest memo

contains the signature of the wife and that of the

petitioner himself, of course in Hindi. It is also no doubt

advanced for the petitioner that since the petitioner

was not informed about the grounds of arrest in

writing, the benefit of violation of Sec.47 should be

extended to the petitioner, but law has been made very

clear in this regard in the decision in Mihir Rajesh

Shah Vrs. State of Maharashtra; (2026) 1 SCC

500, wherein the Apex Court in paragraph- 68 has held

as under:-

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."

The Judgment in Mihir Rajesh

Shah(supra), was rendered by the Apex Court on

06.11.2025, but the petitioner herein was arrested on

25.03.2025, which is much before the aforesaid

decision, but the procedure as affirmed by the Apex

Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah(supra) should apply

prospectively for furnishing written communication of

grounds of arrest to the arrestee. In view of the

aforesaid discussions and taking into account the facts

involved in this case, this Court hardly finds

violation/infraction of provision of Sec.50 CrPC/47

BNSS.