Facts
The petitioner was arrested in connection with STF, CID, CB, Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No. 08 of 2025 for allegedly transporting 295.55 kg of Ganja (commercial quantity) in a Creta car
Source reference: p. 1-2Following a police chase, the petitioner met with an accident and was detained on 25.03.2025 at 9:40 P.M.
Source reference: p. 4Due to his injuries, the Investigating Officer (IO) intimidated the Court and admitted the petitioner to a hospital for treatment
Source reference: p. 4He was subsequently produced before the Special Judge on 01.04.2025 and remanded to judicial custody
Source reference: p. 4The petitioner sought bail, alleging procedural violations regarding the timing of his production and communication of arrest grounds
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the petitioner’s production in Court beyond 24 hours constituted a gross violation of Section 58 of the BNSS (Section 57 CrPC)
Source reference: p. 2 / para. 2(ii)2. Whether the failure to communicate grounds of arrest in a language understood by the petitioner violated Section 47 of the BNSS (Section 50 CrPC)
Source reference: p. 2 / para. 2(iii)3. Whether the petitioner satisfied the twin conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act
Source reference: p. 3 / para. 3Law Applied
The Court applied Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which mandates that for commercial quantities, bail can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences
Source reference: p. 9It interpreted Section 187 BNSS (Section 167 CrPC) regarding procedure when investigation exceeds 24 hours, alongside Section 58 BNSS (Section 57 CrPC)
Source reference: p. 5Regarding the communication of arrest grounds, the Court relied on Section 47 BNSS (Section 50 CrPC)
Source reference: p. 6and the precedent *Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra* (2026), which established that the requirement for *written* communication of arrest grounds applies prospectively from November 6, 2025
Source reference: p. 8-9Reasoning
The Court rejected the claim of illegal detention, noting that the IO’s formal intimation to the Court regarding the petitioner’s emergency hospitalization constituted "deemed remand" for medical necessity
Source reference: p. 4-5Since the Court acknowledged the treatment, there was no violation of the 24-hour rule
Source reference: p. 6On the issue of arrest grounds, the Court found that Column 4 of the arrest memo sufficiently detailed the offences
Source reference: p. 6The plea regarding the Hindi language was dismissed as a belated afterthought, as the petitioner signed the memo (in Hindi) and raised no objection during his initial production
Source reference: p. 7-8Finally, applying the *Mihir Rajesh Shah* ruling, the Court held that the lack of a written explanation was not fatal as the arrest occurred before that judgment’s prospective mandate
Source reference: p. 9Holding
The Court held that there was no procedural infraction of Sections 47 or 58 of the BNSS
Because the quantity of contraband was commercial and the petitioner failed to rebut the statutory presumption of guilt or satisfy the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the bail application was rejected
Source reference: p. 10The BLAPL was accordingly disposed of
Source reference: p. 10Original Court PDF
Akash Kori @ Kasua v. State of Odisha [BLAPL No. 11721 of 2025]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in