[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Giridhari @ Pandit Sahu vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 24 February, 2026
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.13337 of 2025
Giridhari @ Pandit Sahu ... Petitioner
Mr. B.P. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate, along with
Mr. S.S. Panda, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
Mr. S.C. Pradhan, Addl. PP
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER(ORAL)
Order No. 24.02.2026
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. This is a bail application U/S.483 of the BNSS
by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with
Kisinda PS Case No.20 of 2025 corresponding to GR
Case No.174 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned
ADJ, Rairakhol, Sambalpur for commission of offences
punishable U/Ss. 103(1) of BNS, on the main allegation
of committing murder of the father of the informant.
3. Heard, Mr. Biraja Prasad Tripathy, learned Sr.
counsel, who is being assisted by Mr. Siba Sankar
Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.C.
Pradhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the
matter and perused the record.
4. The petitioner seeks for bail by setting up plea
of noncompliance/infraction of the provision of Article
22(1) of the Constitution of India/ Sec.47 of BNSS, but
this Court as an abundant precaution to the plea of the
petitioner has sought for the response of the arresting
officer, who in his affidavit at Paragraph-7 has inter alia
stated the following:-
"7. That, it is further humbly and respectfully
submitted that the petitioner was arrested on
23.03.2025 at 09.45 AM and was forwarded to
the Court of the learned SDJM, Rairakhol within
24 hours of his arrest (Ref: Page No.14 of the
Case Diary). But, the IO while submitting the
forwarding report has put his signature
mentioning the date inadvertently as
23.06.2026, which is a typographical mistake,
for which the Deponent humbly begs apology. It
is the admitted fact that the grounds of
arrest have not been communicated to the
Petitioner, the deponent also renders apology
for the same."
5. Law is fairly well settled that the grounds of
arrest must be communicated to the arrestee by the
Arresting Officer and it is not only the constitutional
mandate, but also, a statutory provision as prescribed
under the law, but noncompliance/infraction of such
mandatory provision enures to the benefit of the
petitioner for bail, even though he is involved in any
kind of offences, heinous/serious and the consequence
of non-compliance thereof has been succinctly laid
down in Directorate of Enforcement Vrs. Subash
Sharma; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 240, wherein the
Apex Court at Paragraph-8 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 admitted position of law together
with the non-compliance of Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India/ Sec.47 of BNSS, 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 the petitioner is allowed to go on
bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand) only 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 with following condition:-
(i) the petitioner in the course of trial shall
attend the trial Court on each date of posting
without fail unless his attendance is dispensed
with. In case the Petitioner fail without
sufficient cause to appear in the Court in
accordance with the terms of the bail, the
learned trial Court may proceed against the
Petitioner for offence U/S.269 of BNS,2023
in accordance with law;
(ii) the petitioner shall not threaten/
influence/induce/ coerce any of the witnesses
including the informant and her family members
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade them disclosing such facts before the
Court.
8. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
9. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per
Rules. A soft copy of this order 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
Jayakrushna
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
