p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Raja @ Rajendra Kumar Sahoo (In BLAPL No.4428 of 2026) Lina @ Anita Paramguru (In BLAPL No.4455 of 2025) … Petitioners Mr. B.K. Behera, Advocate (in BLAPL No.4428 of 2026) Mr. S.K. Bhanjadeo, Advocate (in BLAPL No.4455 of 2026) -versus- State of Orissa … Opposite Party Mr. M.R. Patra, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL) 14.05.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. Since these two 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 counsels for the parties. 2. These two bail applications are U/S.483 of BNSS Act by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Special Crime Unit PS Case No.08 of 2025 corresponding to TR Case No.625 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge Khurda, Bhubaneswar for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 111 of BNS and Sec.21(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, on the main allegation of transporting 540 grams of Brown Sugar in two vehicles. 3. Heard, Mr. Bijay Kumar Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.4428 of 2026; Mr. Sanjib Kumar Bhanjadeo, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL p. 2 No.4455 of 2026 and Mr. M.R. Patra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in these two matters and perused the record. 4. One of the ground that has been taken by both the petitioners for grant of bail to them for non-compliance of Sec.47 of BNSS, since the petitioners were not communicated with grounds of arrest in writing and in order to buttress their submission, both of them relied on the decision in Dr. Rajinder Rajan Vrs. Union of India & Another; 2026 Livelaw(SC) 327, but law on this point has been well settled by the decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah Vrs. State of Maharashtra; (2026) 1 SCC 500 which is very much relevant for the purpose in the present case and the Apex Court therein at paragraph 67 and 68 has held thus:- “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 p. 3 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.” 4. Admittedly, the petitioner in Dr. Rajinder Rajan(supra) has been granted bail by following the principle of Mihir Rajesh Shah(supra) which casts duty on the Court to apply the law in respect of written communication of grounds of arrest prospectively, which is evident from the paragraph-68 of the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah(supra) which was rendered on 06.11.2025, but the present petitioners were arrested prior to that on 16.10.2025 and applying the law laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah(supra) to the present case, it cannot be reasonably said that the non-communication of grounds of arrest in writing would vitiates the arrest & subsequent remand of the petitioners, nonetheless, total non- communication of grounds of arrest to the petitioners is impermissible, but no such plea has been taken by the petitioners, except the plea for non-communication of grounds of arrest in writing. 5. Even otherwise on merit, the petitioners were allegedly found in possession of 540grams of Brown Sugar, but it is contended by both the petitioners that they were allegedly found in separate possession of 255 grams of brown which is also coming under commercial quantity, but on perusal of the materials placed on record together, this Court hardly finds the petitioners to have satisfied the p. 4 Conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act, which is sine qua non for grant of bail to accused persons for commission of offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity. 5. Hence, the bail applications of the petitioners namely Raju @ Rajendra Kumar Sahoo in BLAPL No.4428 of 2026 and Lina @ Anita Paramguru in BLAPL No.4455 of 2026 stand rejected. 6. Accordingly, the BLAPLs stand disposed of. A soft copy of this order be immediately communicated to the concerned Court. (G. Satapathy) Judge Jayakrushna