Non-Compliance with Mandatory Statutory Grounds of Arrest Vitiates Custody and Entitles Accused to Bail

The petitioner, Kanha @ Mrutyunjaya Panigrahi, was arrested on November 18, 2025, in connection with Khordha PS Case No. 110 of 2025 for alleged offences under Sections 296, 318(4), 318(2), 351(3), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, contending that the Investigating Officer (IO) failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of communicating written grounds of arrest.

The IO filed an affidavit admitting that the notice to inform grounds of arrest was not signed by the accused.

1. Whether the failure to obtain the accused’s signature on the notice of grounds of arrest constitutes non-compliance with Section 47 of BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

2. Whether the violation of the fundamental right to be informed of the grounds of arrest entitles the petitioner to be released on bail.

The court primarily applied Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, both of which mandate the communication of grounds of arrest to an arrestee.

Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2026) 1 SCC 500, which establishes that written grounds must be furnished to the arrestee, or in exceptional circumstances, conveyed orally and followed by a written copy no later than two hours prior to the remand proceeding.

Directorate of Enforcement v. Subash Sharma 2025 SCC OnLine SC 240, which holds that if Articles 21 or 22 are violated during arrest, the court has a duty to release the accused on bail as the arrest stands vitiated.

The court scrutinized the IO's affidavit and the purported notice served under Annexure C, noting that the document lacked the petitioner’s signature.

The court reasoned that the absence of a signature signifies a failure to fulfill the statutory and mandatory procedural safeguards required under Section 47 of the BNSS and constitutional mandates under Article 22(1).

Following the precedent in Subash Sharma, the court determined that because the fundamental right to be informed of the grounds of arrest was infringed, the arrest itself was legally unsustainable.

Consequently, the court found that the benefit of this procedural lapse must accrue to the petitioner, necessitating his release.

The bail application was allowed. The court ordered the petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount, subject to terms and conditions set by the lower court.