Uttarakhand High Court

Vikky @ Rikky vs State Of Uttarakhand on 3 July, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
               First Bail Application No. 1750 of 2024

 Vikky @ Rikky                                              ........Applicant

                                   Versus

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

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

 Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Applicant Vikky @ Rikky is in judicial custody in

FIR/Case Crime No. 938 of 2023 dated 01.11.2023, under Sections

147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali

Manglour, District Haridwar. 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 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.

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);

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."

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) 03.07.2025 Avneet/