Abhishek vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 21 of 2024, under Section 302 and 34 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit the applicant has been arrested, but he was not communicated the grounds of arrest in writing as required by the law of the land laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the cases of Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi, (2024) 8 SCC 254, Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576 and Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2025 SCC OnLine 269.

Learned State counsel admits that the ground of arrest, as such, was not communicated to the applicant in writing.

In the case of Vihaan (supra), the position has been culled up by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 21 as follows:-

“21. Therefore, we conclude:

a) The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1);

b) The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved;

c) When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1);

d) Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of chargesheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1);

e) When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and

f) When a 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 a 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 Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.”

In the instant case, the ground of arrest has not been communicated in writing to the applicant. It is violation of fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, a case for bail is made out.

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

The bail application is allowed.

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