SURESH KUMAR MOHAPATRA @ SURIA vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 16:48:53
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 4245 of 2025
Along with
CRLMC Nos.417 of 2026 and CRLMC No.739 of 2026
(In the matters of applications under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973/ Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita).
( In CRLMC No.417 of 2026 )
Suresh Kumar Mohapatra @ Suria …. Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr …. Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode :
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raghunath Biswal, Adv.
Mr. Sailaza Nandan Das, Adv.
Mr. Satyajit Mohapatra (2), Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr.Tej Kumar ASC, ASC..
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-26.03.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-15.05.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. Since this issue raised in above-mentioned CRLMCs involve common
question of fact and law, those were heard analogously and are being
disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convivence and
effective adjudication, CRLMC No. 4245 of 2025 is treated as the lead
case.
2.
The Petitioner, through the present CRLMC, calls in question the
legality and validity of the arrest of the Petitioner and seeks quashing
Page 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 16:48:53
of the arrest memo dated 15.05.2025 prepared by the I.O. in
connection with the Manchewar P.S. No. 91 of 2025, as well as the
consequential remand order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the Court of
the learned District and Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in
T.R. No. 110 of 2025. The Petitioner contends that the said arrest and
remand are ex facie illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the mandatory
provisions contained under Section 47(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 52(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Article 22(1) of
the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the mandatory safeguards
relating to arrest and communication of grounds of arrest were
allegedly not complied with by the Investigating Agency.
ACTUAL ATRIX OF THE ASE
I. F M C :
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) It is submitted that the impugned arrest memo dated 15.05.2025,
in Column No. 4 thereof, mentions the “Circumstances of Arrest
in brief (Grounds of Arrest)”. However, a bare perusal of the
contents recorded therein would reveal that the so-called
“Reasons of Arrest” mentioned by the Investigating Officer are
vague, stereotyped and purely formal in nature. Such reasons
are generic expressions which could ordinarily be made
applicable to any person arrested in connection with a criminal
case. It is contended that the “Grounds of Arrest”, as
contemplated under law, are required to specifically disclose the
material particulars, factual foundation and the incriminating
Page 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 16:48:53
circumstances available with the Investigating Officer which
necessitated the arrest of the accused person. According to the
Petitioner, the arrest memo fails to disclose such specific
grounds and, therefore, does not satisfy the mandatory legal
requirements governing a lawful arrest.
(ii) On 03.03.2025, one Manas Ranjan Pradhan, who was running a
courier service under the name and style of Shree Sai Logistics,
submitted a written information before the Inspector-in-Charge,
Mancheswar Police Station, alleging therein that the present
Petitioner had been sending parcels to different parts of India
through the said courier service since the year 2024 and that
such parcels generally contained cashew nuts.
(iii) On 18.02.2025, the Petitioner allegedly dispatched seven parcels
containing approximately 275 kilograms of cashew nuts in the
name of “Maa Basanti Agency” to one Dhanchan Kumar of
Gandhidham, Gujarat. It is further alleged that, again on
24.02.2025, the Petitioner brought another eight packets
weighing about 242 kilograms for transportation to
Jahangirpuri, New Delhi. However, since the payment towards
the courier charges in respect of the said consignments had not
been made, the informant kept the transit and delivery of the
parcels in abeyance pending clearance of the dues.
(iv) On 03.03.2025, the Police officials from Gujarat arrived at the
office premises of the informant while conducting an inquiry
with regard to the consignor/addressor of the parcels which had
Page 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 16:48:53
been sent through the courier service of the informant on
18.02.2025 to Gandhidham, Gujarat. It was alleged by the
Gujarat Police that the said parcels had been intercepted and
seized on the suspicion that they contained contraband Ganja
(Cannabis).
(v) On the basis of the aforesaid information, the Inspector-in-
Charge of Mancheswar Police Station registered Mancheswar
P.S. F.I.R. No. 91 of 2025 dated 03.03.2025 for the alleged
commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and
accordingly took up investigation into the matter in accordance
with law.
(vi) During the course of investigation, the Investigating Agency
allegedly seized contraband articles weighing about 210
kilograms and 410 grams. Pursuant thereto, the Investigating
Officer, vide arrest memo dated 15.05.2025, arrested the present
Petitioner through the Sub-Inspector of Mancheswar Police
Station at about 4:00 P.M. on 15.05.2025 in connection with
Mancheswar P.S. Case No. 91 of 2025. It is further stated that an
arrest memo to the said effect had been prepared at about 3:45
P.M. on the very same day mentioning the aforesaid case
reference.
(vii) Thereafter, the Petitioner was forwarded to the Court of the
learned District & Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar on
16.05.2025 in connection with the aforesaid case, whereupon the
Page 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 16:48:53
learned Court remanded the Petitioner to judicial custody. It is
further stated that subsequently, on 23.05.2025, the application
for bail preferred by the Petitioner was considered and rejected
by the learned Court below.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
Petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by filing the
present CRLMC Application seeking appropriate relief in accordance
with law.
II. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE P ETITIONER :
4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner respectfully and earnestly made
the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Petitioner submits that he impugned arrest memo dated
15.05.2025, in Column No. 4 relating to the “Grounds of Arrest”,
merely records that the Petitioner was arrested “as involve in
the above noted case”. It is specifically averred that such a
vague and mechanical recital does not satisfy the mandatory
legal requirement concerning communication of the actual
grounds of arrest. According to the Petitioner, the “Grounds of
Arrest” are required to contain all material particulars, factual
circumstances and incriminating materials available with the
Investigating Officer which necessitated the arrest of the
accused person. It is contended that the impugned arrest memo
conspicuously fails to disclose any such specific grounds and,
therefore, suffers from serious legal infirmity.
Page 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 16:48:53
(ii) To buttress the aforesaid submissions, the Petitioner places
reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in arguments the petitioner placed its reliance in the case of
1
Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) , wherein it has
been held that the “Grounds of Arrest” communicated in
writing to an accused must clearly and adequately convey all
the basic facts and material particulars on the basis of which the
arrest is made. It was further observed that such communication
is essential to enable the arrested person to effectively challenge
the custodial remand as well as to seek bail in accordance with
law. The Petitioner submits that the ratio laid down in the said
judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.
(iii) The Petitioner further submits that, in the instant case, except for
incorporating certain formal and stereotyped particulars in the
arrest memo, the Investigating Officer, in order to justify and
validate the arrest of the Petitioner, has merely recorded a
mechanical assertion that the “Petitioner is involved in the
above noted case.” It is contended that such a vague and non-
specific statement does not disclose any meaningful or
substantive “grounds of arrest” and fails to satisfy the
mandatory legal requirement of furnishing the factual basis and
material reasons necessitating the arrest of the accused.
1
(2024) 8SCC 254
Page 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 16:48:53
(iv) The Petitioner further places reliance upon the decision of the
2
Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr ,
wherein it has been clearly settled that the information relating
to the grounds of arrest must be furnished to the arrested person
in such a manner that he is made aware of all the basic facts
constituting the grounds of arrest. It has been further held that
such communication must be effective and meaningful, and
must be conveyed in a language understood by the arrested
person so as to ensure real compliance with constitutional
safeguards. The Court emphasized that the mode and manner of
communication must be such that the object and purpose of the
constitutional protections guaranteed to an arrested person are
fully achieved in both letter and spirit.
(v) The Petitioner contends that although the forwarding report
clearly annexes the arrest memo prepared by the Investigating
Officer, the learned Court of the District & Sessions Judge,
Khurda at Bhubaneswar committed a manifest error in
discharging its judicial duty by failing to duly verify whether
the mandatory safeguards under Article 22(1) of
the Constitution of India, as well as other applicable statutory
requirements, had been strictly complied with at the time of
arrest. It is submitted that such non-application of mind to the
legality of arrest vitiates the consequential remand order passed
by the learned Court.
2
( 2025) 5SCC 599
Page 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 16:48:53
(vi) The Petitioner further contends that mere passing of successive
remand orders by the learned Court would not cure or validate
an initial arrest which is otherwise illegal and not in conformity
with the mandatory requirements of law. It is submitted that the
requirement of informing the arrested person of the grounds of
arrest is salutary, sacrosanct and an essential safeguard
guaranteed under the constitutional and statutory framework.
Such communication of grounds constitutes the only effective
means enabling the arrested person to consult his advocate,
meaningfully oppose police custody remand, and effectively
seek bail in accordance with law.
(vii) The Petitioner submits that the aforesaid illegalities committed
at the time of arrest go to the very root of the arrest and render
the entire arrest illegal, null and void in the eyes of law. It is
therefore contended that it was obligatory on the part of the
learned District & Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar, to
have scrutinized the legality of the arrest at the stage of remand
and, upon finding non-compliance with the mandatory
safeguards, to have declared the arrest as illegal and directed
release of the Petitioner in accordance with law.
III. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE O PPOSITE P ARTIES :
5. Per contra , the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made
the submission that the present CRLMC is not maintainable before
this Court and deserves to be rejected in limine.
Page 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 16:48:53
(i) The Opp. Party submits that, the present CRLMC has been filed
belatedly, nearly after five months from the date of arrest i.e.
10.10.2025, and is therefore not maintainable. It is further
contended that the Petitioner has already availed and exhausted
the efficacious alternative remedy of bail before both the learned
Sessions Court as well as this Hon’ble Court, and having failed
to secure relief therein, the present proceeding has been
instituted as an afterthought, which is not permissible in law.
(ii) The Opp. Party further submits that the inherent powers under
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are
not intended to operate as a substitute for statutory remedies,
nor can the same be invoked to circumvent or nullify the
outcome of previously availed and exhausted legal proceedings.
It is contended that the Petitioner’s attempt to assail the arrest
and remand orders at such a belated stage, after successive
rejection of bail applications, amounts to an abuse of the process
of law and is liable to be rejected at the threshold.
(iii) The Opp. Party contends that the prayer of the Petitioner
seeking quashing of the Arrest Memo dated 15.05.2025 as well
as the remand order dated 16.05.2025 has, by efflux of time,
become infructuous and is not maintainable at this belated
stage. It is further submitted that the remand order passed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda does not suffer from any
jurisdictional infirmity or procedural illegality and is a reasoned
judicial order passed upon due application of mind. In such
Page 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 16:48:53
circumstances, it is contended that no interference is warranted
by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
(iv) The Opp. Party further contends that the forwarding report
placed before the learned Sessions Judge at the time of remand
categorically sets out the grounds of arrest and the relevant
factual basis, thereby demonstrating due compliance with the
mandatory requirements under Article 22(1) of the Constitution
of India as well as Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023. It is submitted that the learned Court, having
satisfied itself on the said compliance, rightly proceeded with
the remand order, which does not suffer from any illegality or
infirmity.
(v) The Opp. Party submits that the Petitioner did not raise any
issue regarding non-communication of the grounds of arrest
before the learned Sessions Judge at the time of remand on
16.05.2025, nor was any such objection taken during the hearing
of the bail application on 23.05.2025. It is submitted that the
same is clearly reflected from the order sheets of the learned
Court below. Therefore, it is contended that the present
challenge at this belated stage is an afterthought and not
maintainable in law.
(vi) The Opp. Party further submits that the seizure of 210 kilograms
and 410 grams of Ganja (Cannabis), which is far in excess of the
commercial quantity prescribed under the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, clearly indicates
Page 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 16:48:53
involvement in a grave offence. It is submitted that under the
said Act, the commercial quantity for Ganja is 20 kilograms, and
the alleged recovery in the present case being substantially
higher than the commercial quantity, attracts the stringent
provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Accordingly, it is
contended that the continued custody of the Petitioner is legally
justified in view of the statutory restrictions on grant of bail in
cases involving commercial quantity of contraband.
IV. C OURT ’ S R EASONING AND A NALYSIS :
6. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed
before this Court.
7. At the outset, it is to be noted that it is imperative to delve into the
constitutional mandate and statutory provisions relatable to
informing of grounds of arrest to the arrested person as well as the
existing jurisprudence as developed by this Court while dealing with
such provisions. The scope of Article 22(1) of the Constitution the
object of the provision is to ensure that the arrested person is made
aware of the basis of the arrest so as to enable him to exercise legal
remedies.
8. The genesis of informing the grounds of arrest to a person flows from
the Constitutional safeguard provided in Article 21 of the Constitution
oof India, which reads “No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”.
The expression ‘personal liberty’ has been given a wide meaning
through various judicial pronouncements. One of which is that
Page 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 16:48:53
personal liberty includes procedural safeguards from the abuse of
power by the State agencies and scrutiny of the actions of the State.
9. Article 22 of the Constitution of India further strengthens the
protection of personal liberty of a person by providing that a person
arrested must be informed pf the grounds of his arrest at the earliest
and should not be detained without informing him of such grounds.
10. The Constitutional safeguard provided under Article 22 of the
Constitution of India has been effectuated by the legislature by
incorporating Section 50 of Cr.P.C./ Section 47 of BNSS, which puts
into force the procedural mandate providing for the protection of the
personal liberty of the person so arrested. Section 47 of BNSS casts a
duty on the police officer or other person arresting any person
without a warrant shall communicate him the grounds of arrest.
11. It mandates that no arrested person shall be detained without being
informed of the grounds of such arrest at the earliest opportunity. The
manner in which such grounds are to be communicated must be
efficacious and substantive which must fulfill the essential objective
and mandate of the constitutional provisions.
12. The constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) of informing an
arrested person of the grounds of arrest stands satisfied where the
arrest memo, containing the essential factual allegations forming the
basis of the arrest, is supplied to the accused. This Court observed that
the mandate is to ensure meaningful communication of the substance
of accusations, and not necessarily to provide a separate document
distinct from the arrest memo.
Page 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 16:48:53
13. In the present case in hand, this Court found that the arrest memo in
the present case contained the substance of the allegations and had
been supplied to the Petitioner at the time of arrest. In such
circumstances, the requirement of communication of grounds of arrest
stood substantially complied with. So, the object of Article 22(1) of the
constitution is to ensure that the arrested person is made aware of the
accusations forming the basis of the arrest. If such information is
conveyed through the arrest memo or any contemporaneous
document supplied to the accused, the requirement of communication
of grounds of arrest cannot be said to have been violated.
14. The constitutional mandate requires that an arrested person must be
informed of the grounds of arrest, and such communication must be
meaningful and effective so as to enable the arrested person to
understand the basis of the accusation against him and to prepare his
defence.
15. The compliance as required under Section 47(1) of BNSS mandatorily
requires every police officer or other person arresting any person
without warrant to forthwith communication to him full particulars of
the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest.
Similarly, Article 22(1) inter alia says no person who is arrested shall
be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of
the grounds for such arrest.
16. Here, the matter dealt on the plain reading of the aforesaid law laid
down by the Supreme Court, it appears that the written
communication of grounds of arrest to the arrestee is applied
Page 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 16:48:53
prospectively from the date of delivery of judgment in Mihir Rajesh
3
Shah v. State of Maharashtra which has been rendered on 06.11.2025,
but the arrest in the present case relates and has happened prior to
this date and therefore, the contention/plea of the petitioner is found
unmerited.
17. In the present case, the aforesaid arrest memo was not only signed by
the arresting officer, but also by the arrestee and, therefore, the
communication of grounds of arrest to the petitioner is in the line of
Section 47 of BNSS.
18. The Supreme Court in Kasireddy Upendra Reddy v. State of Andhra
4
Pradesh, , wherein it has been held that:
“36. If a person is arrested on a warrant, the grounds for
reasons for the arrest is the warrant itself; if the warrant is
read over to him, that is sufficient compliance with the
requirement that he should be informed of the grounds for
his arrest. If he is arrested without a warrant, he must be
told why he has been arrested. If he is arrested for
committing an offence, he must be told that he has
committed a certain offence for which he would be placed on
trial. In order to inform him that he has committed a certain
offence, he must be told of the acts done by him which
amounts to the offence. He must be informed of the precise
acts done by him for which he would be tried; informing
him merely of the law applicable to such acts would not be
enough.”
19. The Supreme Court also echoed in Narcotic Control Bureau v.
5
Kashif, , wherein it has been held that:
3
2025 INSC 1288 (Supreme Court)
4
2025 SCC Online SC 1228
5
2024 11 SCC 372
Page 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 16:48:53
“34.Section 52-A was inserted only for the purpose of early
disposal of the seized contraband drugs and substances,
considering the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft,
constraint of proper storage space, etc. There cannot be any
two opinions on the issue about the early disposal of the d
contraband drugs and substances, more particularly when
it was inserted to implement the provisions of International
Convention on the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances, however delayed compliance or non-compliance
with the said provision by the officer concerned authorised
to make application to the Magistrate could never be treated
as an illegality which would entitle the accused to be
released on bail or claim acquittal in the trial, when
sufficient material is collected by the investigating officer to
establish that the search and seizure of the contraband
substance was made in due compliance with the mandatory
provisions of the Act.”
20. In the present case, there is no violation of any fundamental rights of
the Petitioner as alleged. The materials on record clearly indicate that
the Petitioner was duly made aware of the grounds of arrest at the
time of preparation of the arrest memo and was also informed of the
same at the stage of remand proceedings. It is, therefore, submitted
that the requirement of law stands substantially complied with.
21. It is a well-settled principle that ignorance of law cannot be taken as
an excuse. If such a plea is permitted to be accepted in a routine
manner, it would virtually render the criminal justice process otiose
and ineffective, leading to a situation where accused persons may
seek to evade due process of law on technical pleas, thereby
frustrating legitimate prosecution. Such an interpretation would not
only impede the course of justice but also create a situation where
Page 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 16:48:53
undertrial prisoners and offenders alike may misuse procedural
safeguards to avoid lawful custody, thereby adversely affecting the
administration of criminal justice and public interest at large.
V. C ONCLUSION :
22. I n view of the foregoing analysis, and after careful consideration of
the material facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the allegations, if taken at their face-value,
disclose a prima facie case against the Petitioner which requires
adjudication at trial. The pleas raised by the Petitioner pertain to
matters of defence which cannot be examined in proceedings under
Section 482 CrPC/ 528 of BNSS.
23. Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the
criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C/ Section 528 of BNSS.
24. Before parting, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Director
General of Police, Odisha to issue a circular to all the police stations of
the State mandating compulsory mentioning of the ground(s) of arrest
(in the Arrest Memo) which must be furnished to the accused in
writing in a language comprehensive to the arrestee as prescribed in
6
Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra .
25. Accordingly, the CRLMC No.4245 of 2025 along with CRLMC No.417
of 2026 and along with CRLMC No.739 of 2026 stand dismissed.
26. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
6
2025 INSC 1288 (Supreme Court)
Page 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 16:48:53
27. A copy of this order be shared with the counsel for the State for
onward transmission.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Dated 15 May, 2026/
Page 17