Uttarakhand High Court
Akeel @ Bhuttu vs State Of Uttarakhand on 20 November, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Third Bail Application No. 63 of 2025
Akeel @ Bhuttu .............Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Siddharth Bisht, AGA for the State.
Mr. Vinod Sharma and Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocates for the informant.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The applicant Akeel alias Bhuttu is in judicial custody
in Case crime No. 1108 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149,
307, 452, 323, 325, 504, 506, 354, 336 & 427 IPC, Police Station
Kotwali Manglore, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on
bail.
2. This is third bail application of the applicant. His first
and second bail applications have already been rejected on
28.08.2024 and 03.12.2024, respectively.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the
instant matter, the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the
applicant in writing; it makes a ground for bail in view of the
judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and another, 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 269 and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and
another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356.
5. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the
applicant had sought short term bail on medical grounds, but he
did not proceed for treatment; instead, he filed an affidavit before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in an SLP. He submits that the
grounds, which have been taken by the applicant now at this stage,
were available with the applicant, when his first and second bail
applications were rejected; these grounds are not available for the
applicant now. In support of his contention, learned counsel has
placed reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of Hon'ble
Allahabad High Court in the case of Satya Pal v. State of U.P., 1998
3 Crimes (HC) 249.
6. In the case of Satya Pal (supra), the Hon'ble Allahabad
High Court has held that "fresh arguments in a second bail
application for an accused cannot be allowed to be advanced on
these very facts that were available to the accused while the
first bail application was moved and rejected".
7. Learned State Counsel admits that the grounds of
arrest were not communicated to the applicants in writing.
8. In fact, in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra), in para
21, the principle has been summed up by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and in para 21(a) and 21(f), 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."
9. A bare reading of the findings recorded by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) at para 21(a),
makes it clear that informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest
is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of
India and reading it with the finding recorded in para 21(f) makes it
abundantly clear that when a violation of Article 22(1) is
established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release
of the accused.
10. It has further been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), wherein in para 56,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the law as under:-
"56. In conclusion, it is held that:
i) The constitutional mandate of informing the
arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory
in all offences under all statutes including
offences under Penal Code, 1860 (now BNS
2023);
ii) The grounds of arrest must be
communicated in writing to the arrestee in
the language he/she understands;
iii) In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person
is unable to communicate the grounds of
arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it be
so done orally. The said grounds be
communicated in writing within a
reasonable time and in any case at least two
hours prior to production of the arrestee for
remand proceedings before the magistrate.
iv) In case of non-compliance of the above, the
arrest and subsequent remand would be
rendered illegal and the person will be at
liberty to be set free."
11. It is true that successive bail applications on the same
grounds may not be taken or, in fact, the grounds available earlier,
if not taken, may not be considered in the second bail application,
unless they go to the root of the matter or relates to constitutional
rights. But, here it is a case of violation of constitutional rights of
the applicant, which should not be denied.
12. 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.
13. The bail application is allowed.
14. 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.)
20.11.2025
Avneet/
