The Orissa High Court on Monday (August 31) granted bail to Biju Janata Dal's (BJD) ex-MLA from the Berhampur constituency Bikram Kumar Panda in the murder case of Advocate and former Odisha State Bar Council (OSBC) member Pitabash Panda. [2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 103]

A Bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra found procedural flaws in the arrest of the ex-legislator and was satisfied that grounds of arrest were not properly communicated to him by the police. In the words of the Judge–

“Nothing was brought on record to demonstrate that the grounds of arrest in writing were ever communicated to the accused Petitioner. Moreover, a close scrutiny of the arrest memo in respect of the accused Petitioner doesn't clearly indicate the grounds of arrest or detention of the Petitioner. Additionally, the 'Grounds of Arrest' column in the arrest memo contains only the noting: “In the strength of above noted case”. Other than the above document no other document was placed on record to satisfy this court with regard to communication of grounds of arrest of the Accused-Petitioner. Such factual backdrop doesn't inspire the confidence of this court with regard to communication of grounds of arrest to the accused Petitioner.”

As per the FIR lodged by the brother of the deceased, on the night of 06.10.2025, motorcycle-bound two unknown assailants opened fire at the deceased from a close range by means of a pistol as he was returning to his residence from the chambers. Though immediately taken to the MKCG Medical College & Hospital, but he was declared brought-dead.

Based on the complaint an FIR was lodged against unknown accused persons under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) the BNS read with Sections 25(1-B) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. A thorough investigation under the supervision of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam revealed a multi-layered conspiracy to eliminate the deceased. The petitioner was also arraigned as an accused based on the confessional statements of co-accused persons and other circumstantial evidence.

The petitioner was purportedly arrested by the investigating team around 03:30 AM on 22.10.2025. As per the prosecution contention, the grounds of arrest were orally communicated to the petitioner in Odia language and a written memo of arrest was prepared with a “Grounds of Arrest” column. It is alleged that the petitioner refused to put his signature on such arrest memo. Subsequently, the police telephonically informed the petitioner's father of the grounds of arrest and asked him to receive the relevant documents, which he denied.

The petitioner was subsequently remanded to judicial custody and denied bail by the SDJM, Berhampur. He also applied for bail from the Court of 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur. However, this application was also rejected. A preliminary charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner as well as the co-accused 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.

Being aggrieved by the denial of bail by the Courts below, the petitioner filed the bail application before the High Court. Two major contentions adopted by the petitioner for grant of bail were; (i) non-supply of written grounds of arrest to him and to his family members at the time of arrest or subsequent thereto; and (ii) his implication on the basis of weak pieces of evidence like confessional statements of co-accused and other circumstantial evidence.

The State opposed the bail plea on the main ground that the police had furnished the grounds of arrest via arrest memo as per law, but the petitioner himself denied to put his signature on the same and refrained from endorsing the same. Therefore, it was argued that he cannot be given benefit of his fault.

Upon consideration of rival contentions and perusal of the relevant documents, the Court found prima facie fault with the investigating agency. It was noted that in the column reserved for “grounds of arrest” in the arrest memo, the police entered a vague statement “In the strength of above noted case”.

Justice Mohapatra, after placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 169 and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1066 was of the considered view that the police flagrantly violated the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1), which also finds statutory support from Sections 47, 48 and 62 of the BNSS. Accordingly, he held–

“On a careful analysis of the submissions made by both sides, further on close scrutiny of the voluminous case diary which was produced before this Court in course of hearing of the bail application and in light of the foregoing analysis, this Court observes that the Arresting Officer/Agency has failed to discharge its obligation of satisfying this Court that the grounds of arrest were in fact informed to the Accused-Petitioner, either at the time of arrest or at a subsequent stage.”

Resultantly, the Court admitted the petitioner on bail upon imposition of certain conditions, including the mandatory condition to refrain from influencing prosecution witnesses and terrorising the deceased's family.

Interestingly, in a candid display of judicial accountability, Justice Mohapatra regretted taking a month's time in delivering a “regular” bail order. He said–

“Though this is a regular bail application, since it involves applicability and interpretation of a crucial provisions of the Constitution of India as well as the B.N.S.S., moreover, considering the voluminous documents and case diary and the matter was mentioned for relisting by the learned counsels for rehearing of the matter on different points of law three was some delay in delivering the judgment. Such delay in delivery of the judgment is regretted by the Court, at the outset.”

Case Title: Bikram Panda @ Bikram Kumar Panda v. State of Odisha

Case No: BLAPL No. 13860 of 2025

Date of Order: August 31, 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Subir Palit, Senior Advocate & M/s. P.K. Dash, Sailaza Nandan Das & A. Acharya, Advocates

Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State; Mr. Bijay Kumar Ragada, Advocate for the Informant

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 103

Click Here To Read/Download Order