Boota Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 1918 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Boota Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 13 August, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

  HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
           Second Bail Application No. 169 of 2025
 Boota Singh                                               ........Applicant

                                     Versus

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

 Present:-
        Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate for the applicant.
        Mr. Vijay Khanduri, Brief Holder for the State.


 Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.149 of 2024,

under Sections 109, 351(2), 352, 191(2), 191(3), 3(5) of the Bhartiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Police

Station Nanakmatta, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his

release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused.

3. This is the second bail application. The first bail

application, being BA1 No.2394 of 2024, was dismissed in non-

prosecution on 26.03.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, in fact,

the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the applicant in

writing, which is violation of the Constitutional Right of the applicant

and it makes a ground for bail, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another,

2025 SCC OnLine SC 269.

5. Learned State Counsel admits this fact.

6. 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."

7. 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.

8. The bail application is allowed.

9. 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)
 Ravi Bisht                                              13.08.2025
 Ravi Bisht