[ High Court of Orissa at Cuttack ]

Orissa HC Grants Bail to Ex-MLA in Contract Killing Case, Holds Arrest Vitiated by Non-Communication of Grounds

The Orissa High Court found that the ‘Grounds of Arrest’ column on the arrest memo contained only a vague phrase, violating Article 22(1) and Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023, and ordered the petitioner's immediate release.

Manaswi Singh — High Court of Orissa at Cuttack — 2 September 2026 — 9 min read

The Orissa High Court on 31 August 2026 granted regular bail to Bikram Panda, a former member of the Odisha Legislative Assembly, who was accused of being the prime conspirator in the contract murder of a sitting member of the Odisha State Bar Council at Berhampur on the night of 6 October 2025. Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, sitting singly, held that the arresting officer had failed to communicate the grounds of arrest to the petitioner in the manner mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution, Sections 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), and the Odisha Information of Arrested Persons Rules, 2025. The arrest was accordingly held to be vitiated. The court directed the Registry to transmit a copy of the judgment to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Odisha, and the Director General of Police, Odisha, for wide circulation among all police stations in the State.

The Murder, the Conspiracy Alleged, and the Petitioner's Arrest

On the night of 6 October 2025, two unknown assailants riding a motorcycle waited near Kalyan Mandap under Baidyanathpur Police Station limits, Berhampur, Ganjam, and shot the deceased at close range with a pistol as he was returning from his chamber. He was taken to M.K.C.G. Medical College & Hospital, Berhampur, and declared brought dead. The cause of death was haemorrhage and shock from firearm injuries.

Purna Chandra Panda, the younger brother of the deceased, filed a written complaint, and Baidyanathpur PS Case No.518 of 2025 dated 7 October 2025 was registered against unknown accused persons under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), read with Sections 25(1-B) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The SDPO, Berhampur, was directed to lead the investigation under the supervision of the Superintendent of Police, Berhampur.

Investigation revealed CCTV footage of two suspects in white shirts, black pants, and helmets arriving on a motorcycle bearing a fake registration number OD07K2278. A suspicious UPI transaction of Rs.9,500/- from a mobile recharge shop at Goilundi, Berhampur, traced to one Mithun Kumar of Bihar, opened a chain of digital evidence including CDRs, IPDRs, SDRs, CAFs, mobile handset data, and WhatsApp logs. The chargesheet alleged a seven-layered conspiracy: Bikram Panda (the petitioner) and one Pintu @ Sivashankar Dash (ex-Mayor) allegedly harboured deep-seated political, personal, and professional enmity with the deceased. According to the prosecution, close associates of the petitioner engaged middlemen who in turn arranged “supari” killers from Bihar, who made multiple unsuccessful attempts between 10 and 14 September 2025, before two local criminals, Kurupati Bhuyan and Chintu Pradhan, executed the plan on 6 October 2025.

A total of sixteen persons were apprehended. The petitioner was arrested at 12:00 midnight on 22 October 2025 from his residence, formally placed under arrest at 3:30 AM, and forwarded on the same day along with eleven other co-accused persons to the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Berhampur under Section 58 of the BNSS. The SDJM remanded all accused to judicial custody till 3 November 2025. The petitioner has been in continuous judicial custody since 22 October 2025.

The chargesheet, filed on 3 January 2026, arraigned all sixteen persons under Sections 103(1), 109(1), 61(2)(a), 111(2)(a), 238(a), 249(a), and 3(5) of the BNS, read with Sections 25(1)(a), 25(6), and 27(1) of the Arms Act. The matter is currently at the stage of framing of charges before the 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Berhampur as S.T. Case No.18 of 2026. A supplementary charge sheet (Charge Sheet No.2 dated 24 June 2026, containing 193 pages) was also filed during the pendency of the bail application before the High Court.

Procedural Route to the High Court

After his arrest, the petitioner applied before the SDJM, Berhampur, for release on the ground of alleged illegal arrest for non-supply of written grounds. That application was rejected on 14 November 2025. He then moved B.A. No.1309 of 2025 before the District & Sessions Judge, Ganjam at Berhampur, which was transferred to the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur, who rejected it on 16 December 2025. The petitioner then filed BLAPL No.13860 of 2025 before the High Court under Section 483 of the BNSS, seeking bail and a declaration that his arrest was illegal.

The Central Legal Issue: What Do Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS Require?

The petitioner's primary submission, advanced by Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija and Mr. Subir Palit, Senior Advocates, was that the 'Grounds of Arrest' column in the arrest memo read only: “In the strength of above noted case” — a phrase they argued was wholly vague and constitutionally inadequate. They contended this violated Article 21 and Article 22(1) of the Constitution, as well as Sections 47, 48, and 62 of the BNSS.

Section 47 of the BNSS requires every police officer arresting a person without warrant to “forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest.” Section 48 additionally mandates that every arresting officer shall “forthwith give the information regarding such arrest and place where the arrested person is being held to any of his relatives, friends or such other persons as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person.” Section 62 provides that no arrest shall be made except in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS or any other law in force.

The petitioner also argued that the Odisha Information of Arrested Persons Rules, 2025, framed by the State Government under Section 48(3) of the BNSS and notified on 28 February 2025, prescribed Annexure-A as the format for the arrest register, with a dedicated column requiring grounds of arrest to be recorded in writing. Clause 10 of that form explicitly requires the reasons or grounds of arrest to be communicated in writing. The petitioner contended this prescribed format was not followed.

The prosecution-state, led by Additional Government Advocate Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, disputed non-supply. It submitted that the grounds were orally read out in Odia to the petitioner before formal arrest, that the petitioner wilfully refused to sign the memo in the presence of two advocate-witnesses, that his father was telephonically informed and also refused to receive the documents, and that SI Dusmanta Kumar Pradhan personally visited the residence to communicate the grounds to the father. The State relied on State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1072) for the proposition that the absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render an arrest illegal absent demonstrable prejudice.

The informant's counsel, Mr. B.K. Ragada, additionally argued that the requirement of written communication as established in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2026) 1 SCC 500 operates prospectively, relying on a coordinate bench of the Orissa High Court in Akash Kori @ Kasua v. State of Odisha (BLAPL No.11721 of 2025).

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Mohapatra began by setting out Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution, and Sections 47, 48, and 62 of the BNSS, noting that these statutory provisions are “in furtherance of the sacred objective to enforce the invaluable fundamental right as contained in Article 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution.”

The court analysed the Supreme Court's conclusions in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025) 5 SCC 799 at length. That judgment held: the requirement of informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is mandatory; the burden to prove compliance lies always on the arresting agency once non-compliance is alleged; non-compliance vitiates the arrest and subsequent remand orders (though not the investigation, chargesheet, or trial); filing of a chargesheet does not validate a breach of the constitutional mandate; and when a violation of Article 22(1) is established, the court must order the release of the accused forthwith, overriding any statutory restriction on bail.

The court then applied Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2026) 1 SCC 500, which held at paragraph 66.2 that grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he or she understands, and at 66.3 that where the arresting officer is unable to do so immediately, it must be done at least two hours before production before the Magistrate. The court in the present case disagreed with the coordinate bench in Akash Kori which had held this requirement applicable only prospectively from the date of Mihir Rajesh Shah. Justice Mohapatra held that the requirement of communicating grounds of arrest is a constitutional mandate that has been authoritatively settled by Constitution Bench jurisprudence and cannot be given a restrictive prospective reading.

On the factual record, the court found that the 'Grounds of Arrest' column of the arrest memo in the petitioner's case contained only the notation “In the strength of above noted case”. No other document was placed before the court showing communication of specific grounds of arrest. The forwarding report submitted to the SDJM at the time of production did not disclose supply of written grounds; the remand order of 22 October 2025 was equally silent; and the order of 14 November 2025 rejecting the petitioner's first release application contained no reference to written grounds having been furnished. The prosecution's claim of compliance was first raised during the bail application hearing on 9 December 2025 before the Sessions Court, relying on case diary entries, which the court treated with scepticism consistent with Vihaan Kumar.

The court rejected the prosecution's submission that the petitioner's refusal to sign absolved the arresting agency of its constitutional obligation. It held that a person cannot be deprived of a fundamental constitutional right because he exercises another right — the right to refuse to sign a police document. The court also noted that while all fifteen other co-accused had signed their arrest memos, this at most showed the documents existed; it did not discharge the burden of proving that specific grounds were effectively communicated to the petitioner.

On the prosecution's reliance on State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1072), the court accepted the petitioner's submission that the subsequent Supreme Court order dated 16 October 2025 in Ahmed Mansoor & Others v. The State (Criminal Appeal No.4505 of 2025) had distinguished Sri Darshan on the ground that it dealt with cancellation of bail after chargesheet where grounds of detention were served immediately — neither of which was the situation here.

On the merits, the court found the prosecution case against the petitioner to be entirely circumstantial. There was no evidence of his direct participation in the execution of the murder. His alleged involvement as a co-conspirator rested primarily on co-accused statements, CDR data showing telephonic contact, and evidence of previous enmity. The court noted that it would be premature to comment on the admissibility or weight of co-accused statements at the bail stage, leaving those questions for the trial court.

Directions to the State on Police Compliance

Before disposing of the petition, Justice Mohapatra observed that despite the judgments in Vihaan Kumar and Mihir Rajesh Shah, the police administration in Odisha continues to fall short of the mandatory requirements governing arrest. The court directed the Registry to communicate a copy of the judgment, with the consent of the Chief Justice of Orissa, to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Odisha, and the Director General of Police, Odisha. Upon receipt, those authorities were directed to communicate the principles and guidelines set out in paragraphs 45 and 52 of the judgment to all police stations in Odisha and all other authorities with power of arrest under any statute, with a specific direction to follow those directives strictly.

Order

The High Court held that:

The arrest of the petitioner is vitiated; the petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith.
This finding will not affect the merits of the chargesheet or the pending trial before the 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Berhampur in S.T. Case No.18 of 2026.
The finding is confined to the case of the petitioner alone.
The petitioner is directed to furnish a bail bond in accordance with Section 91 of the BNSS, 2023, to the satisfaction of the trial court.
The release is subject to such terms and conditions as the trial court deems fit, including a condition that the petitioner shall not harass, threaten, terrorise, or influence the victim's family, the informant, or any prosecution witness in any manner. Violation of conditions would entail re-arrest in accordance with law.

BLAPL No.13860 of 2025 was accordingly disposed of on 31 August 2026.