HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Third Bail Application No. 48 of 2025 Laxmi ........Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Faizan Ali, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, AGA for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant Laxmi is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No. 73 of 2024, dated 27.02.2024, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC, Police Station Jhabrera, District Haridwar. She has sought her release on bail. 2. This is third bail application of the applicant. Her first and second bail applications have already been rejected by this Court on 11.03.2025 and 09.07.2025. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that 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. 5. Learned State Counsel admits that the as such the grounds of arrest, in writing, were not communicated to the applicant. He would submit that it is recorded in the General Diary entry that the grounds of arrest were communicated to the applicant in writing. 2 6. The Court posed a question as to whether those grounds of arrest have been recorded in the General Diary entry? The answer is in negative. 7. 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.” 8. 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. 9. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant be released on bail, on her executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 26.09.2025 Avneet/