Gangadhar Nag vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party
2026 Latest Caselaw 2203 Ori

Orissa High Court

Gangadhar Nag vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 11 March, 2026

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
               BLAPL No.727 of 2026

   (In the matter of application under Section 483 of the
   BNSS).

   Gangadhar Nag                        ...      Petitioner
                          -versus-
   State of Odisha                      ... Opposite Party

   For Petitioner           : Mr. S. Panigrahi, Advocate

   For Opposite Party       : Mr. M.R. Patra, Addl. PP

        CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

DATE OF HEARING & DATE OF JUDGMENT:11.03.2026 (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 Bhawanipatna

Sadar PS Case No.530 of 2025 corresponding to CT Case

No.1135 of 2025 pending in the file of learned SDJM,

Bhawanipatna, Kalahandi for commission of offences

punishable U/Ss.147/ 148/ 149/ 150 of BNS r/w Sec.17 &

18 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act & Sec.17 of

Criminal Law Amendment Act and Sec.4 & 5 of Explosive

Substances Act.

2. The petitioner seeks for bail for want of compliance

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

India.

3. In the Course of hearing, Mr. Sisira Panigrahi,

learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing attention of

the Court to law laid down by Apex Court in Mihir Rajesh

Shah Vrs. State of Maharashtra; (2026) 1 SCC 500

submits that the accused was not communicated in writing

the grounds of his arrest and thereby, the petitioner is

entitled to bail for infraction of compliance of provisions of

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

3.1. On the other hand, Mr. M.R. Patra, learned

Addl. PP by taking this Court through the documents as

produced for the petitioner submits that the said provision

has been duly complied with as the petitioner was duly

communicated in Odia and that too, in writing about the

grounds of his arrest since the document by which the

petitioner claims for infraction of the provision reveals the

aforesaid communication to the accused with his signature

and signature of his wife and also countersigned by the

arresting officer and thereby, there is hardly any infraction

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

Constitution of India, so as to render the arrest and remand

of the petitioner to custody illegal necessitating his release

on bail.

4. After having considered the rival submissions upon

perusal of record, the petitioner has definitely set up the

plea of grant of bail for want of compliance of Sec.47 of

BNSS r/w Sec.22(1) of the Constitution of India and it is no

more res-integra that the accused has got a valuable

statutory and mandatory right to be informed/

communicated in writing about the grounds of his arrest in

the language he understands immediately after his arrest

and if that is not possible immediate after arrest, he shall

be informed accordingly just two hours before his

production in the Court. In this case, the petitioner has of

course produced the arrest memo under Annexure-1 series

and what has been written exactly at column no.10 therein

is extracted as under:-

"Reasons/Grounds of arrest: The accused Gangadhar Nag (34) S/o Late Rasik Nag, of village Sulia, GP- Gundri, PS- Sadar, Bhawanipatna, Dist. Kalahandi transporting the explosive materials i.e. Detonators- 3 pieces in folding condition, Gelatine -ideal power-90- 4

pieces. Electric wire, Nippo Battery-10 pieces small size (AA-3 DG), solar panel- 1 piece, Mao Poster Written in Odia typing Slogan against police- 24 sheets, one black polythene, odia anti- slogan hand writing poster (Bharatiya CPI, Maobadi), Mao banner, leaflet in a jari bag without any licence or authority for delivery of the same to the Maoist to facilitates, conspired the Maoist in wagging of war against the Govt."

5. Additionally, the document in Odia that is produced

in this bail application under Annexure-1 series by the

learned counsel for the petitioner discloses that the

petitioner has also been communicated in writing in Odia

about his grounds of arrest and such communication as

made therein to the petitioner is extracted in English as

under:

Grounds of Arrest

Recipient:-Gangadhar Nag(34) S/o Late Rasik Nag, of village Sulia, GP- Gundri, PS- Sadar, Bhawanipatna, Dist. Kalahandi:-

"You are hereby informed that there is sufficient evidence against you in Bhabanipatna Sadar PS Case No.530 of 2025 dated 07.11.2025 U/S.147/148/149/150 of BNS r/w Sec.17/18 of UAP Act,1967/17 Cr.LA Act/ Sec.4 & 5 of Explosive Substance Act and you are accordingly arrested on 07.11.2025 at 10.30PM in connection with this case and your wife was also informed.

Read over the aforesaid communication to the accused and on finding the same to be correct,

the accused Gangadhar Nayak put his LTI on it."

6. It is, therefore, very clear that the copy of the

aforesaid written communication of grounds of arrest in

Odia was handed over to the accused as acknowledged by

him in the form of putting his LTI on such document in Odia

which is evident from the word recipient (Praptesu in Odia).

It is also found from the above document that the contents

of the document was read over and explained to the

petitioner in Odia and who after finding the same to be

correct has put his LTI. The aforesaid information was also

acknowledged by the wife of the petitioner namely Laxmi

Nag and another two persons, namely Niranjan Bibhar &

Sankar Suna by putting their LTIs & signature(Sankar

Suna) on it and the aforesaid communication was also

countersigned by the IO in Odia.

7. Sec.47 of BNSS makes it imperative for an

arresting officer while arresting any person without warrant

to communicate to the arrestee forthwith the full particulars

for the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for

such arrest. Further, in Paragraph-62 of Mihir Rajesh

Shah (supra), the Apex court has held 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."

8. In the aforesaid backdrop and situation, when the

petitioner was duly informed/communicated about his

grounds of arrest in writing in Odia, which was duly

acknowledged by the petitioner as recipient by putting his

LTI and countersigned by the arresting officer and keeping

in view the remand of the petitioner to judicial custody on

his production by the Court, which itself is indicative of

mandatory compliance of arrest and remand, this Court

hardly finds any infraction of compliance of provision of

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

India so as to render the arrest and remand of the

petitioner illegal necessitating grant of bail to him. The plea

as advanced by the petitioner for grant of bail for

noncompliance of Sec.47 of BNSS and Article 22(1) of the

Constitution of India is found to be unmerited and is

accordingly rejected.

9. Even otherwise on merit for consideration of bail

application of the petitioner, it is found that the petitioner

was forwarded to the Court for the aforesaid offences

including the offences Sec.17/18 UAP Act, but grant or

refusal of bail for commission of offence under UAP Act is

further regulated by Sec.43(D)(5) of UAP Act, which

provides that no person accused of offence shall be

released on bail, where Public Prosecutor opposes the bail

application of such accused person, but if the Court, on

perusal of the case diary or report made U/S. 173 of the

CrPC/193 of BNSS is of the opinion that there are

reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation

against such person is prima facie true, it can certainly

grant bail to the accused. Thus, bail is not the absolute rule

in a case for commission of offences under Chapter IV & VI

of the UAP Act, 1967.

10. On a studied scrutiny materials placed on

record together with the allegation as levelled against the

petitioner, this Court hardly finds the petitioner to have

satisfied the conditions of Sec.43(D)(5) of UAP Act, which is

sine qua non for grant of bail. Although, learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that the charge-sheet has already

been filed, but he fails to file the copy of the charge-sheet,

but the impugned order does not reveal about completion

of investigation in this case. In view of the aforesaid facts

and circumstances and taking into consideration the

materials placed on record, this Court hardly finds any

reason to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

11. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner

stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

A soft copy of the order be immediately communicated to

the learned trial Court.

(G. Satapathy)

Location: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the11th day of March, 2026/Jayakrushna