Orissa HC Dismisses NDPS Arrest Challenge, Directs DGP to Mandate Written Grounds in All Arrest Memos
Holding that the arrest memo substantially complied with Article 22(1), the Orissa High Court dismissed three CRLMCs but directed the DGP to issue a statewide circular on written grounds of arrest.
The Orissa High Court at Cuttack has dismissed three criminal miscellaneous petitions filed by Suresh Kumar Mohapatra, who was arrested on 15 May 2025 in connection with an NDPS case involving the alleged dispatch of contraband Ganja concealed in parcels sent to Gujarat and Delhi. Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, sitting singly, found that the arrest memo had been signed by both the arresting officer and the petitioner, that the substance of the allegations was communicated at the time of arrest, and that the constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India was substantially met. While rejecting the challenge to the arrest and remand, the court directed the Director General of Police, Odisha to issue a circular to all police stations in the State mandating that grounds of arrest be furnished to every accused in writing, in a language the arrestee can comprehend.
The Arrest and the Parcels: How the Case Arose
On 3 March 2025, Manas Ranjan Pradhan, who ran a courier service called Shree Sai Logistics, submitted a written complaint to the Inspector-in-Charge of Mancheswar Police Station. He alleged that the petitioner had been sending parcels through his service since 2024, ostensibly containing cashew nuts.
The complaint was triggered by a specific sequence of events. On 18 February 2025, the petitioner allegedly dispatched seven parcels weighing approximately 275 kilograms in the name of “Maa Basanti Agency” to one Dhanchan Kumar at Gandhidham, Gujarat. On 24 February 2025, he brought eight more packets weighing about 242 kilograms for transportation to Jahangirpuri, New Delhi. Because courier charges had not been paid, the informant held back delivery of those consignments.
On 3 March 2025, police officials from Gujarat arrived at the courier office while investigating the consignor of the parcels sent to Gandhidham. They alleged that those parcels had been intercepted and seized on suspicion of containing contraband Ganja (Cannabis). On the same day, Mancheswar P.S. FIR No. 91 of 2025 was registered for an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
During investigation, the agency seized contraband articles weighing 210 kilograms and 410 grams. The petitioner was arrested on 15 May 2025 at around 4:00 P.M. by the Sub-Inspector of Mancheswar Police Station. An arrest memo had been prepared at 3:45 P.M. on the same day. On 16 May 2025, the petitioner was forwarded to the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar, which remanded him to judicial custody in T.R. No. 110 of 2025. A bail application filed on 23 May 2025 was rejected by the court below.
The Petitioner's Challenge: Vague Grounds, Defective Remand
The petitioner approached the Orissa High Court by filing CRLMC No. 4245 of 2025, along with CRLMC Nos. 417 of 2026 and 739 of 2026, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He sought quashing of the arrest memo dated 15 May 2025 and the remand order dated 16 May 2025.
The core grievance was that Column No. 4 of the arrest memo, which is meant to record the “Circumstances of Arrest in brief (Grounds of Arrest)”, contained only a mechanical recital that the petitioner was arrested “as involve in the above noted case.” Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Raghunath Biswal, argued that this was a generic, stereotyped statement that could apply to any accused in any criminal case and did not disclose the specific factual foundation or incriminating circumstances that necessitated the arrest.
The petitioner relied on Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254, for the proposition that grounds of arrest communicated in writing must clearly convey all basic facts and material particulars so that the arrested person can effectively challenge remand and seek bail. He also placed reliance on Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr, (2025) 5 SCC 599, which held that communication of grounds must be effective, meaningful, and in a language understood by the arrested person.
The petitioner further contended that the Sessions Judge had failed to verify compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, Section 47(1) of the BNSS, and Section 52(1) of the NDPS Act at the time of remand. He argued that successive remand orders cannot cure an initially illegal arrest, and that the Sessions Judge was obliged to declare the arrest illegal and direct release upon finding non-compliance.
The State's Objections: Delay, Alternative Remedy, and Infructuousness
The Additional Standing Counsel for the State, Mr. Tej Kumar, raised preliminary objections. The CRLMC had been filed nearly five months after the arrest — around 10 October 2025 — making it belated. The petitioner had already availed the remedy of bail before the Sessions Court and before the High Court, and having failed in both, the present petition was an afterthought.
The State also argued that the prayer to quash the arrest memo and remand order had become infructuous by efflux of time. On the merits, it submitted that the forwarding report placed before the Sessions Judge at the time of remand set out the grounds of arrest and the factual basis, demonstrating compliance with Article 22(1) and Section 47 of the BNSS. The petitioner had not raised any objection regarding non-communication of grounds either at the remand stage on 16 May 2025 or during the bail hearing on 23 May 2025.
On the NDPS angle, the State pointed out that the commercial quantity for Ganja under the Act is 20 kilograms, and the alleged recovery of 210 kilograms and 410 grams was far in excess of that threshold. This attracted the stringent bail restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, making continued custody legally justified.
How the Court Reasoned
Dr. Justice Panigrahi began by tracing the constitutional architecture. Article 21 guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law, and personal liberty has been interpreted to include procedural safeguards against abuse of power by State agencies. Article 22 reinforces this by requiring that an arrested person be informed of the grounds of arrest at the earliest and not be detained without such communication.
Section 47 of the BNSS gives statutory force to this mandate: a police officer arresting any person without a warrant must forthwith communicate the full particulars of the offence or other grounds for arrest. The court held that the manner of communication must be efficacious and substantive, fulfilling the essential objective of the constitutional provisions.
On the facts, the court found that the arrest memo in the present case contained the substance of the allegations and had been supplied to the petitioner at the time of arrest. Critically, the arrest memo was signed not only by the arresting officer but also by the petitioner himself. The court held that where the arrest memo containing the essential factual allegations is supplied to the accused, the constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) is substantially complied with. The mandate is to ensure meaningful communication of the substance of accusations, not necessarily to provide a separate document distinct from the arrest memo.
The court then addressed the prospectivity question. It noted that the Supreme Court's ruling in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 1288, which specifically required written communication of grounds of arrest to the arrestee, was rendered on 6 November 2025. The arrest of the petitioner had taken place on 15 May 2025, prior to that date. The court held that the requirement of written communication as crystallised in Mihir Rajesh Shah applies prospectively from the date of that judgment, and therefore the petitioner's plea on this ground was unmerited.
The court also drew on Kasireddy Upendra Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 SCC Online SC 1228, which held that an arrested person must be told of the precise acts done by him for which he would be tried, and that informing him merely of the applicable law is not enough. It further referred to Narcotic Control Bureau v. Kashif, (2024) 11 SCC 372, for the proposition that delayed or non-compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act regarding disposal of seized contraband cannot by itself entitle an accused to bail or acquittal where sufficient material has been collected to establish that search and seizure was conducted in compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Act.
The court rejected the argument that successive remand orders could not cure an illegal arrest, finding that there was no initial illegality to cure in the first place. It also observed that permitting technical pleas of this nature in a routine manner would render the criminal justice process ineffective and allow accused persons to evade due process, frustrating legitimate prosecution.
On the merits of the CRLMC jurisdiction, the court held that the pleas raised by the petitioner pertained to matters of defence which could not be examined in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC or Section 528 of the BNSS, and that the allegations, taken at face value, disclosed a prima facie case requiring adjudication at trial.
The DGP Direction
Before disposing of the petitions, the court issued a direction that goes beyond the immediate case. It directed the Director General of Police, Odisha to issue a circular to all police stations in the State mandating that the ground or grounds of arrest be compulsorily mentioned in the arrest memo and furnished to the accused in writing, in a language comprehensible to the arrestee, as prescribed in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra. A copy of the order was directed to be shared with counsel for the State for onward transmission.
Order
CRLMC No. 4245 of 2025, CRLMC No. 417 of 2026, and CRLMC No. 739 of 2026 were dismissed by a common judgment dated 15 May 2026. Any interim order passed earlier in those proceedings stands vacated.