Mandatory written communication of arrest grounds under BNSS applies prospectively from November 6, 2025.

The Petitioner was accused of committing murder by pouring petrol on the deceased, Anjan Kumar Padhi, and setting him on fire

A case was registered under Sections 341 and 302 of the IPC (Bhawanipatna Town PS Case No. 430 of 2023)

The trial is currently in progress with 18 witnesses already examined

The Petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, primarily challenging the legality of his detention on the grounds of non-compliance with Section 47 of the BNSS regarding the communication of grounds of arrest

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to bail based on the alleged non-compliance with Section 47 of the BNSS regarding the communication of grounds of arrest in writing

2. Whether the gravity of the offence and the existence of a dying declaration preclude the grant of bail

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, regarding the power of the High Court to grant bail

Section 47 of the BNSS, which mandates the communication of grounds of arrest to the arrestee

Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2026) 1 SCC 500, which established that the requirement to provide written grounds of arrest in a language understood by the arrestee applies prospectively from the date of that judgment, i.e., November 6, 2025

Regarding the procedural challenge under Section 47 of the BNSS, the Court noted that the incident and arrest occurred prior to the Supreme Court's mandate in Mihir Rajesh Shah

The Court highlighted that the apex court explicitly made the requirement for written communication of grounds prospective to avoid uncertainty in criminal administration

Furthermore, the Court observed that the trial court had already verified that Section 47 had been properly complied with at the time of arrest

On the merits, the Court found substantial incriminating evidence, specifically a dying declaration made by the deceased naming the Petitioner

Given the "nature and gravity" of the offence (murder) and the advanced stage of the trial, the Court determined that the legal requirements for bail were not met

It held that the prospective ruling in Mihir Rajesh Shah did not invalidate the Petitioner’s arrest and that the presence of a dying declaration in a murder trial necessitated continued custody

The BLAPL was disposed of with directions to transmit a soft copy of the order to the trial court