Kartik Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 4504 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Kartik Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand on 19 September, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
           Second Bail Application No. 147 of 2025
 Kartik Sharma                                           ........Applicant

                                    Versus

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

 Present:-
        Mr. Vikas Anand, Advocate for the applicant.
        Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State.


 Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.83 of 2024,

under Sections 302, 307, 323, 504, 34 IPC and Section 4/25 of the

Arms Act, 1959, Police Station ITI, District Udham Singh Nagar. He

has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

3. This is the second bail application. The first bail

application, being BA1 No.1384 of 2024, was rejected on 06.11.2024.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the

applicant, after his arrest, was never communicated the grounds of

arrest in writing. He would refer to the judgment passed 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);

....................................................................................... ....................................................................................... ....................................................................................... .......................................................................................

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)
 Ravi Bisht                                              19.09.2025