BA1/1888/2024 of VISHAL SINDHU Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

First Bail Application No. 1888 of 2024

Vishal Sindhu

..….....Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent

Present:- Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. V.S. Rawat, AGA for the State.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No. 534 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 506 IPC, Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant was not informed in writing the ground of arrest. He would submit that this entitles the applicant to bail. Learned counsel has referred to the principle of law as laid down in the case of Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269. Learned counsel would also submit that this Court has already considered this as ground of bail in First Bail Application No. 2528 of 2024, Dinesh Kashyap v. State of Uttarakhand, decided on 03.04.2025.

4. Learned State Counsel admits that the ground of arrest was not communicated to the applicant in writing.

5. In the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra), in para 19, the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the requirement under Section 50 of the Code as well as the mandate of Article 22(1) the Constitution of India, which reads as follows:-

“19. An argument was sought to be canvassed that in view of sub-Section (1) of Section 50 of CrPC, there is an option to communicate to the person arrested full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or the other grounds for the arrest. Section 50 cannot have the effect of diluting the requirement of Article 22(1). If held so, Section 50 will attract the vice of unconstitutionality. Section 50 lays down the requirement of communicating the full particulars of the offence for which person is arrested to him. The ‘other grounds for such arrest’ referred to in Section 50(1) have nothing to do with the grounds of arrest referred to in Article 22(1). Section 47 of the BNSS is the corresponding provision. Therefore, what we have held about Section 50 will apply to Section 47 of the BNSS.”

6. bare reading of the settled law, makes its abundantly clear that Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is not subject to the provisions of Section 50 of the Code. The Constitutional mandate of Article 22(1) has to be fulfilled and if any arrest is made in its defiance, the dictum as has been laid down in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) in para 21(f) would entail, which reads as follows.

e)…… f) When violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the

accused. That will be ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.”

7. In the instant case, admittedly the grounds of arrest have not been communicated in writing to the applicant.

8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

9. The bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Avneet/

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)16.05.2025