[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/1544/2025 on 28 November, 2025
2025:UHC:10624
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
BA1 No.1544 of 2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Gaurav Singh and Mr. Sushil
Joshi, Advocatess for the applicant.
Mr. Pradeep Lohani, Brief Holder for
the State of Uttarakhand.
2. This first bail application has been
moved by the applicant seeking regular
bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No.108 of 2025,
under Sections 8/20/60 of the N.D.P.S.
Act, registered at Police Station Kotwali
Jwalapur, District Haridwar.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case and
that he has no criminal antecedents. It is
further submitted that the applicant has
been in judicial custody since 09.03.2025
and has, thus, already undergone
substantial incarceration. It is further
submitted that a bare perusal of the
F.I.R. demonstrates that the inventory is
shown to have been prepared at the
spot, yet it strangely contains the F.I.R.
number, which raises serious doubt
regarding its genuineness. Learned
counsel for the applicant has placed
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Narcotics Control
Bureau Vs. Kashif, reported in (2024) 11
SCC 372, wherein it has been held that
procedural irregularities and non-
compliance with mandatory provisions
under the N.D.P.S. Act are material
considerations while adjudicating bail
applications. It was further held that
although Section 37 of the Act prescribes
2025:UHC:10624
stringent twin conditions for the grant of
bail, the Court is nonetheless required to
examine whether serious procedural
lapses exist which may undermine the
credibility of the prosecution case.
Learned counsel contends that the
grounds of arrest were not
communicated in writing to the applicant,
therefore, in light of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vihan
Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another,
reported in 2025 SCC On Line SC 269,
the applicant is entitled to be released on
bail.
4. In the case of Vihan Kumar (supra),
particularly in para 19, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court examined the scope of
Section 50 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and the constitutional
safeguard enshrined under Article 22(1)
of the Constitution of India, observing as
follows:
"19. An argument was sought to be canvassed
that in view of sub-Section (1) of Section 50 of
CrPC, there is an option to communicate to the
person arrested full particulars of the offence
for which he is arrested or the other grounds for
the arrest. Section 50 cannot have the effect of
diluting the requirement of Article 22(1). If held
so, Section 50 will attract the vice of
unconstitutionality. Section 50 lays down the
requirement of communicating the full
particulars of the offence for which a person is
arrested to him. The 'other grounds for such
arrest' referred to in Section 50(1) have nothing
to do with the grounds of arrest referred to in
Article 22(1). Section 47 of the BNSS is the
corresponding provision. Therefore, what we
have held about Section 50 will apply to Section
47 of the BNSS."
5. A bare reading of the aforesaid
dictum makes it abundantly clear that
the constitutional mandate under Article
22(1) of the Constitution of India is
2025:UHC:10624
independent of and not subject to the
provisions of Section 50 of the Code.
Compliance with Article 22(1) is
mandatory, and any arrest made in
contravention of this constitutional
requirement would attract the
consequence laid down in para 21(f) of
Vihan Kumar (supra), which reads as
under:
"21(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
Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution is
established."
6. Considering the submission of
learned counsel for the parties and
without expressing any opinion as to the
final merits of the case, this Court is of
the view that applicant deserves bail at
this stage.
7. The bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant, namely, Afjal be
released on bail, on executing personal
bond and furnishing two reliable sureties,
each of like amount, to the satisfaction of
Court concerned, subject to the following
conditions:
(i) The applicant shall attend the trial
Court regularly, and, he will not seek any
unnecessary adjournment.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of this case.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave India
2025:UHC:10624
without any prior permission of the trial
Court.
It is clarified that if the applicant
misuses or violates any of the conditions,
imposed upon him, the complainant/
informant will be free to move the court
for cancellation of bail.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
28.11.2025
Arpan
ARPAN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a2
0dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001,
JAISWAL
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109C
B987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL
Date: 2025.11.28 18:20:56 +05'30'
