Giving Inadequate Grounds Doesn't Automatically Vitiate Arrest Unless Accused Is Prejudiced: Orissa High Court Cites 'Sonam Raghuvanshi' Case
The Orissa High Court has held that the police furnishing inadequate grounds of arrest to the arrestee may not always vitiate the arrest, and it is vitiated only when such communication of inadequate grounds causes prejudice to the arrestee. [2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 85]While explaining the difference between “non-communication of reasons of arrest” and “inadequate communication of reasons...
The Orissa High Court has held that the police furnishing inadequate grounds of arrest to the arrestee may not always vitiate the arrest, and it is vitiated only when such communication of inadequate grounds causes prejudice to the arrestee. [2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 85]
While explaining the difference between “non-communication of reasons of arrest” and “inadequate communication of reasons of arrest”, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy placed explicit reliance on the recent order of the Supreme Court in State of Meghalaya v. Sonam Raghuvanshi. The Judge observed–
“In view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Sonam Raghuvanshi (supra), inadequate/defective service of grounds of arrest by itself may not vitiate the arrest, unless prejudice appears to have been caused to the arrestee for want of compliance and such prejudice caused to the arrestee must be established by him to make him entitle for the relief of bail.”
The petitioner was arrested on 29.06.2024 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on the main allegation of transporting 297 KGs of contraband Ganja in a vehicle.
Prior to this bail application, the petitioner had filed another application seeking bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Koraput on the ground of insufficient supply of arrest grounds, which was rejected. Notably, he had filed multiple bail applications before the High Court in the past. However, he never raised the ground of violation of the provisions under Section 47 of the BNSS read with Article 22(1), i.e. non-supply of reasons of arrest.
“In the context, the timing of challenge is important inasmuch as had there been total non-compliance of Sec. 47 of BNSS r/w Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner would have definitely complained of before the remanding Court or before this Court since these provisions provide safeguards against arbitrary arrest and to make the accused/arrestee aware about the allegations raised against him,” the Court remarked.
Then the Court went on to examine the difference between “non-supply of grounds of arrest” and “inadequate supply of grounds of arrest”. For this purpose, it relied upon the recent order of the Supreme Court in Sonam Raghuvanshi (supra). It was held therein that blanket non-compliance of Section 47 BNSS or complete non-supply of grounds can vitiate the arrest, but inadequate supply of grounds may not always result in vitiation unless prejudice is caused to the arrestee.
Justice Satapathy further reiterated that the requirement of giving written grounds of arrest has been imposed by a judicial decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1066. It was clarified in the very same ruling that the requirement will have only “prospective” effect. The same has also been echoed in Sonam Raghuvanshi (supra). Since the petitioner was arrested much prior to the date of judgment (06.11.2025) in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), the ruling has no application in the case.
In other words, since the petitioner was arrested in the year 2024, which was much before the Apex Court mandated supply of written grounds of arrest, mere insufficient supply of grounds in a written manner will not have a detrimental effect on the rights of the arrested accused.
Above all, the arrest memo not only disclosed the provisions of law for which the petitioner was forwarded to the Court, but also contained the date and time of his arrest, the signature of the petitioner and the arresting officer in English together with signature of the person/relative of the petitioner to whom information of the arrest of the petitioner was given.
Therefore, the Court was of the view that this is not a case of blanket non-compliance of Section 47 BNSS, rather it is only a case of inadequate supply of grounds. Hence, the petitioner has to show which prejudice he had to suffer on account of such inadequacy.
“In this case, what prejudice has been caused to the petitioner due to inadequate compliance as per his own claim, has neither been disclosed by the petitioner in his bail application nor has been brought by him to the knowledge of the Court. The aforesaid situation makes the petitioner not entitle to the relief as claimed by him,” it held.
Lastly, ingeminating the law laid down in Sonam Raghuvanshi (supra), the Court made it clear that once the arrestee prefers a bail application and gets a finding on merit, it no more remains open for him to agitate the ground of non-supply of reasons of arrest in the subsequent applications.
Accordingly, the bail application was rejected.
Case Title: Rajesh Khilla @ Khila @ Khillo v. State of Orissa
Case No: BLAPL No. 2580 of 2026
Date of Order: July 28, 2026
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Amit Biswal, Advocate
Counsel for the State: Mr. M.R. Patra, Addl. Public Prosecutor
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 85