Uttarakhand High Court
Ankit vs State Of Uttarakhand on 27 November, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Second Bail Application No. 270 of 2025
Ankit .............Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate for the applicant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The applicant Ankit is in judicial custody in Special
Sessions Trial No. 366 of 2024, State v. Ankit, which is based on
FIR No. 110 of 2024), under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and
Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012, Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has
sought his release on bail.
2. This is second bail application of the applicant. His
first bail application has already been rejected on 03.01.2025.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant was not informed the grounds of arrest in writing; it
makes a ground for bail, as laid down 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 State Counsel admits that grounds of arrest
were not communicated to the applicant in writing.
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. In the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has further summed up the principle in para 56 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."
8. Since, in the instant case, grounds of arrest were not
communicated to the applicant in writing, this Court is of the view
that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged
on bail.
9. The bail application is allowed.
10. 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.)
27.11.2025
Avneet/
