The Orissa High Court has ordered the release of former Odisha MLA Bikram Panda in a murder conspiracy case, holding that the arresting officer failed to comply with the mandatory safeguards under Sections 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra held that the non-compliance infringed former MLA’s fundamental right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and consequently held his arrest to be “vitiated.”
The Petitioner had approached the High Court seeking regular bail in connection with Baidyanathpur Police Station Case arising out of the alleged murder conspiracy. The prosecution case, as recorded by the Court, alleged that Panda, a former MLA, was involved in a conspiracy leading to the killing of the victim on October 6, 2025. The chargesheet invoked several provisions of the BNS and Arms Act.
Also Read Breaking | NCLT Five-Member Bench Stays Order Approving Subhash Chandra’s ₹6.25 Cr Repayment Plan
The principal issue before the Court concerned the communication of the grounds of arrest. Panda’s counsel argued that no written grounds of arrest had been furnished to him and pointed out that the arrest memo merely recorded In the strength of above noted case in the grounds-of-arrest column. The counsel argued that this was vague and failed to disclose the nature of the allegations, Former MLA’s alleged involvement or the specific acts attributed to him.
The State disputed this contention, submitting that written grounds had been prepared on the date of arrest and were orally communicated to Panda in Odia before his formal arrest. It further claimed that Panda had refused to sign the arrest memo and other documents and that the grounds of arrest had also been communicated to his father.
After examining the legal and factual position, the High Court held that the arresting officer had not followed the mandatory requirements under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS. It held that the failure infringed Panda’s fundamental right under Article 22(1) and that his arrest consequently stood vitiated.
The Court accordingly directed that the Petitioner be forthwith set at liberty. It directed him to furnish a bail bond under Section 91 of the BNSS to the satisfaction of the trial court. His release was made subject to conditions, including that he must not harass, threaten, terrorise or influence the victim’s family, the informant or any prosecution witness. The Court also clarified that violation of the conditions could result in his re-arrest in accordance with law.
At the same time, the High Court made clear that its finding that petitioner’s arrest was vitiated would not affect the merits of the chargesheet or the pending trial, and that the finding was confined to his case.
The Court further expressed concern that police authorities continue to fall short of complying with mandatory arrest safeguards despite judgments of the Supreme Court laying down such requirements.
