[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Dusmanta Sabar vs State Of Orissa And Another ... Opposite ... on 2 February, 2026
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL NO.13652 of 2025
(In the matter of application under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023).
Dusmanta Sabar ... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Orissa and another ... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. T.K. Acharya, Addl. PP
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:02.02.2026(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
Jaipatna PS Case No.287 of 2025 corresponding to CT
Case No.418/89 of 2025(POCSO) pending in the file of
learned ADJ Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under
POCSO Act, Kalahandi at Bhawanipatna for commission
of offences punishable U/Ss.137(2)/64(2)(m) of BNS
r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act, on the main allegation of
kidnapping the victim and committing rape and
aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon her.
2. Heard, Mr. Satyanarayan Mishra, learned
counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. T.K. Acharya, learned
Addl. Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the
record, but none appears for the victim despite being
duly intimated as informed by learned Addl. PP.
3. The only ground under which bail is sought
for to the Petitioner is for want of compliance of Article
22(1) of the Constitution of India r/w Section 47 of
BNSS, but law is fairly well settled that the grounds of
arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee
by the Arresting Officer within two hours before his
production in the Court, however, on a careful perusal
of the document produced by the Petitioner i.e. certified
copy of grounds of arrest does reveal the signature of
Petitioner in column no.6 at the bottom, but the
certified copy of memo of arrest which has been
produced reveals a different signature of the Petitioner.
On a comparative look to these two signatures on the
documents, it appears that the signature in the
document of grounds of arrest substantially differs with
the signature of the Petitioner in the memo of arrest in
addition to absence of signature of the Arresting
Officer. When a duty is cast upon a public official to do
certain thing in a certain way, the same has to be done
in that way, but no further explanation can be accepted
to consider that the said document has been
substantially complied with. Article 22(1) makes it
mandatory for informing the grounds of arrest in
writing to the arrestee, which has not been done in this
case.
4. What would be the legal consequence, if
the ground of arrest is not communicated to the
arrestee in writing has been well elucidated by the Apex
Court in Directorate of Enforcement vrs. Subash
Sharma; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 240, wherein in a
somewhat similar situation, 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."
5. In view of the above facts and
circumstance and considering the failure of the arresting
Officer to comply the mandate of provision of Article
22(1) of the Constitution of India r/w Section 47 of
BNSS, this Court has no option left, but to admit the
Petitioner to bail.
6. 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
of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit
and proper by it with following conditions:-
(i) the petitioner shall not contact the victim
or visit her house or village and
(ii) the petitioner shall not threaten/
induce/influence/coerce any of the witnesses
including the victim and her family members
acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade them from disclosing such facts
before the Court.
This Court, however, reserves the liberty to
the victim and the State to file appropriate application
for cancellation of bail, if any of the conditions are
violated or a case for cancellation of bail is otherwise
made out. It is made clear that in such event for being
approached for cancellation of bail, the learned trial
Court would be at liberty to pass appropriate order in
accordance with law without further reference to this
Court.
7. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 2nd day of February, 2026/Priyajit
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
