Grounds of arrest in arrest memo satisfy constitutional mandates if communicated prior to prospective judicial requirements.

The Petitioner was arrested on May 15, 2025, in connection with Mancheswar P.S. Case No. 91 of 2025 involving the seizure of 210.410 kg of Ganja

The arrest followed an FIR registered after a courier service owner alleged the Petitioner dispatched parcels containing contraband under the guise of cashew nuts

The Petitioner challenged the legality of the arrest memo and subsequent remand order dated May 16, 2025, contending that the "Grounds of Arrest" in the memo—merely stating he was "involved in the above noted case"—were vague, mechanical, and violated constitutional safeguards

The State argued the petition was a belated attempt to bypass failed bail applications and that the grounds were sufficiently communicated via the forwarding report and the signed arrest memo

1. Whether the arrest of the Petitioner was illegal due to the alleged non-communication of specific factual "grounds of arrest" as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS

2. Whether the requirement of providing written grounds of arrest, as established in recent precedents, applies retrospectively to arrests made prior to those judgments

Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which mandates that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible

Section 47(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 50 CrPC), which requires the communication of full particulars of the offence

The court relied on Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) regarding the necessity of informing basic facts and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, which established that the requirement for written communication of grounds applies prospectively from November 6, 2025

Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantities

The Court reasoned that the primary objective of Article 22(1) and Section 47 of the BNSS is to ensure the arrestee understands the substance of the accusations to seek legal remedy

In the present case, the Court found that the arrest memo contained the substance of the allegations and was signed by both the officer and the Petitioner, constituting substantial compliance with the law at that time

Critically, the Court held that the legal requirement for written grounds of arrest as per Mihir Rajesh Shah applies prospectively from November 6, 2025; since the Petitioner was arrested in May 2025, he could not claim the benefit of that specific procedural standard

Furthermore, the Court observed that the Petitioner failed to raise these objections during the initial remand or bail hearings, suggesting the challenge was an afterthought

The Court declined to interfere under Section 528 of the BNSS, noting that the high quantity of contraband (210 kg) necessitated trial adjudication rather than a summary quashing of proceedings

The Court answered that the mandate for written grounds is prospective and did not invalidate previous arrests

While dismissing the petitions, the Court directed the Director General of Police, Odisha, to issue a circular mandating that, moving forward, all police stations must furnish written grounds of arrest to accused persons in a language they understand, in accordance with the Mihir Rajesh Shah precedent