Prem Shankar vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 1677 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Prem Shankar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 4 August, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

  HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                First Bail Application No. 2486 of 2024

 Prem Shankar                                                  ........Applicant

                                     Versus

 State of Uttarakhand                                      ........Respondent

 Present:-
        Mr. V.K. Guglani, Advocate for the applicant, through video conferencing.
        Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State.

 Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Applicant Prem Shankar is in judicial custody in FIR No.

25 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 120-B, 34 IPC and Section 66-D

of the Information Technology Act, 2000, Police Station Cyber Crime

Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on

bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the

instant case, the grounds of arrest had never been communicated to

the applicant in writing as mandated under Article 22(1) of the

Constitution of India and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973. He submits that in view of the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of

Haryana and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269, in case the grounds

of arrest are not communicated in writing, it makes out a case for bail.

4. Learned State Counsel admits that the grounds of arrest,

in writing, were not communicated to the applicant.

5. In para 21 of the judgment in the case of Vihaan Kumar

(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed 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);

....................................................................................... ....................................................................................... ......................................................................................

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."

6. 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.

7. The bail application is allowed.

8. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a

personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like

amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

(Ravindra Maithani, J) 04.08.2025 Avneet/