p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.4551 of 2026 Kiran Sunani … Petitioner Mr. S. Dwibedi, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha … Opposite Party Mr. T.K. Acharya, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL): 07.07.2026 03. 1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Tumudibandh PS Case No.59 of 2026 corresponding to CT Case No.125 of 2026 pending in the file of learned Special Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Balliguda for commission of offence punishable U/Ss.20(b0(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. 2. Heard, Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.K. Acharya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record. 3. The Petitioner has in fact set up the plea of non- compliance of Sec. 47 of BNSS r/w Section Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, but it has been made mandatory by the Apex Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah Vrs. State of Maharashtra; (2026) 1 SCC 500 which lays down that the Arresting Officer must communicate the grounds of arrest to the arrestee soon after his arrest in writing in the language the arrestee understands and if the same is not possible immediately to inform the grounds of arrest, the arrestee must be informed orally immediate after the arrest, but he must be communicated with the grounds of the arrest in writing in the aforesaid manner at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee before the Magistrate. The p. 2 explanation as offered by the Arresting Officer by way of an affidavit in this case discloses that the Police briefed the accused on the grounds of arrest orally which has been reflected in the Case Diary and prepared the arrest memo. The judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah(supra) was pronounced on 06.11.2025, but the Petitioner herein was arrested on 25.04.2026 and thereby, he ought to have been informed of his grounds of arrest in writing in the language he understands, but the Arresting Officer has failed to do so. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and taking into account the failure of the Arresting Officer to comply the provision of Sec. 47 of BNSS r/w Section Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, the inevitable conclusion is that the Petitioner should be granted bail inasmuch as the arrest and remand has been vitiated for non-compliance of the aforesaid mandatory constitutional provision. 5. In the result, the bail application of the petitioner stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only with two solvent sureties each 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. 6. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. 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 Priyajit Designation: Sr. Stenographer