Uttarakhand High Court
Anchit Goel vs State Of Uttarakhand on 1 July, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Second Bail Application No. 105 of 2025
Anchit Goel ........Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Vijay Khanduri, Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Lalit Shrma, Advocate for the informant.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant is in judicial custody in Criminal Case
No.330 of 2024, State Vs. Anchit Goel and Others, pending
in the court of Additional Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate,
Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, arising out of Case
Crime No.111 of 2024, under Sections 308(5), 351(3), and
79 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station
Kelakhera, 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.2113 of 2024, was rejected on
06.01.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that,
in fact, the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the
applicant in writing, 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 gives a statement 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);
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."
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)
01.07.2025
Ravi Bisht
