Court affirms prospective application of written communication of arrest grounds, as per Apex Court judgments; No relief for petitioner arrested prior to judgment dates.
In a significant judgment, the Orissa High Court, presided over by Justice G. Satapathy, denied bail to Rajesh Khilla, who is implicated in the transportation of 297 kgs of contraband Ganja. The judgment, delivered on July 28, 2026, examined the compliance of arrest procedures under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the Constitution of India, particularly focusing on the necessity of communicating the grounds of arrest to the accused as mandated by Section 47 of BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
Rajesh Khilla's counsel, Mr. Amit Biswal, argued that the arrest was vitiated due to non-compliance with these statutory requirements. However, the court noted that Khilla had not raised this issue in previous bail applications or at the time of his initial arrest on June 29, 2024. The court emphasized that total non-compliance would vitiate an arrest, but inadequate compliance requires the accused to demonstrate prejudice caused by such non-compliance to warrant relief.
The judgment drew on precedent from the Supreme Court decisions in "Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra" and "State of Meghalaya v. Sonam Raghuvanshi," which clarified that the requirement for written communication of arrest grounds operates prospectively from the date of those judgments. Since Khilla was arrested before these decisions were pronounced, the court found no basis for his claim.
The court further noted that Khilla failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the alleged inadequate compliance, which is necessary to qualify for bail. Despite the petitioner's assertions of procedural violations, Justice Satapathy concluded that the established procedures were adequately followed, and the petitioner was made aware of the charges against him, thus not entitling him to relief.
The judgment reinforces the notion that while procedural safeguards are crucial, their retrospective application is limited. The court underscored that any claim of inadequate compliance must substantively show prejudice caused to the accused for it to be considered.
With this ruling, the bail application was disposed of, maintaining the petitioner's custody as the legal proceedings continue. This decision highlights the judiciary's adherence to procedural norms and the importance of demonstrating tangible harm when claiming procedural lapses.
Bottom line:-
Bail application under Section 483 of BNSS - Communication of grounds of arrest required under Section 47 of BNSS read with Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India - Non-compliance of these provisions must be established with prejudice caused to the arrestee to entitle relief - Prospective application of written communication of grounds of arrest affirmed by Apex Court.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 47, Constitution of India, 1950 Article 22(1), Article 14
Rajesh Khilla @ Khila @ Khillo v. State of Orissa, (Orissa) : Law Finder Doc id # 2949573
