Sompal vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 1400 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Sompal vs State Of Uttarakhand on 30 July, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                Fourth Bail Application No. 8 of 2025

 Sompal                                                     ........Applicant

                                   Versus

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

 Present:-
        Ms. Divya Jain, Advocate for the applicant.
        Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State.

 Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Applicant Sompal is in judicial custody in FIR/Case

Crime No. 329 of 2023, under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Doiwala, District

Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.

2. This is fourth bail application of the applicant. His first,

second and third bail applications have been rejected on 14.03.2024,

28.11.2024 and 17.12.2024.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

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

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. It is argued

that 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 that the grounds of arrest,

in writing, were not communicated to the applicant.

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) 30.07.2025 Avneet/