Orissa High Court Directs DGP To Ensure Arrest Memos Mention Written Grounds Of Arrest In Language Understood By Arrestee

The Orissa High Court has ordered the Director General of Police (DGP) to put out a circular mandating all the concerned police officials of the State to mandatorily provide grounds of arrest in the arrest memorandum in a language understood by the accused/arrestee. [2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 59]

While declining to quash the arrest and remand of certain persons accused of peddling ganja in excess of commercial quantity, the Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi stressed that technical objections cannot be over-emphasized to grant relief to accused at the cost of public interest at large. The Judge further observed–

“It is a well-settled principle that ignorance of law cannot be taken as an excuse. If such a plea is permitted to be accepted in a routine manner, it would virtually render the criminal justice process otiose and ineffective, leading to a situation where accused persons may seek to evade due process of law on technical pleas, thereby frustrating legitimate prosecution. Such an interpretation would not only impede the course of justice but also create a situation where undertrial prisoners and offenders alike may misuse procedural safeguards to avoid lawful custody, thereby adversely affecting the administration of criminal justice and public interest at large.”

The Inspector-In-Charge of Mancheswar Police Station, Bhubaneswar registered an FIR for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. During the course of investigation, the investigating agency seized contraband articles weighing about 210 kilograms and 410 grams, while the commercial quantity being 20 KGs.

Thereafter the investigating officer, by an arrest memo dated 15.05.2025, arrested the petitioner on 15.05.2025. The petitioner was forwarded to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar on 16.05.2025 in connection with the aforesaid case, whereupon the Court remanded him to judicial custody.

Subsequently, on 23.05.2025, the application for bail preferred by the petitioner was rejected. After preferring another unsuccessful bail plea before the High Court, the petitioner filed this case under Section 482, CrPC/Section 528, BNSS to challenge his arrest and remand on the basis of non-supply/supply of vague and mechanical grounds of arrest.

By relying upon landmark precedents like Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 414 and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 169, the petitioner argued that the Sessions Judge displayed an utter lack of judicial application of mind by passing the remand order, notwithstanding the fact that he was merely supplied with mechanical and vague grounds of arrest. Thus, he vehemently sought nullification of both his arrest and remand.

The State, on the other hand, contended that the forwarding report placed before the Sessions Judge at the time of remand clearly sets out grounds of arrest which is a sufficient compliance of the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) and Section 47 of the BNSS. It was further alleged that after unsuccessfully exhausting alternative remedies, the petitioner filed this petition after a delay of five months just to defeat the purpose of his arrest on a narrow technical ground.

Upon hearing the parties, Justice Panigrahi underlined that the constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) of informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest stands satisfied where the arrest memo, containing the essential factual allegations forming the basis of the arrest, is supplied to the accused. He reiterated that the mandate is to ensure meaningful communication of the substance of accusations, and not necessarily to provide a separate document distinct from the arrest memo.

“In the present case in hand, this 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. In such circumstances, the requirement of communication of grounds of arrest stood substantially complied with. So, the object of Article 22(1) of the constitution is to ensure that the arrested person is made aware of the accusations forming the basis of the arrest. If such information is conveyed through the arrest memo or any contemporaneous document supplied to the accused, the requirement of communication of grounds of arrest cannot be said to have been violated.”

Therefore, the Court found no substance and force in the contention of the petitioner that his constitutional and statutory rights under Article 22(1) and Section 47, BNSS respectively were curtailed. The Bench was of the further view that entertaining such technical objections in arrest shall render the criminal justice system otiose.

Resultantly, the petition was dismissed. However, considering influx of quashing petitions on such technical ground(s), the Court directed the DGP to issue a circular to all the police stations of the State to mandatorily provide grounds of arrest in the arrest memo itself in a language which is understood by the accused/arrestee, as per the mandate imposed by the top Court in its ruling in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1066.

Case Title: Suresh Kumar Mohapatra @ Suria v. State of Odisha & Anr. [along with tagged matters]

Case No: CRLMC No. 4245 of 2025 along with CRLMC Nos. 417 & 739 of 2026

Date of Judgment: May 15, 2026

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Raghunath Biswal, Advocate; Mr. Sailaza Nandan Das, Advocate; Mr. Satyajit Mohapatra (2), Advocate

Counsel for the State: Mr. Tej Kumar, Addl. Standing Counsel

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 59

Click Here To Read/Download Order