SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS 20.03.2025 BAI No.1601 of 2024 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. 3. Applicant- Mehtab, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 584 of 2024, under Sections 109, 351(2) Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 3/25 Arms Act, registered at Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was neither present on the spot nor did he open fire upon the victim, he has been implicated on the basis of concocted story; there is delay of one day in lodging the FIR; no motive of the commission of alleged offence has been given in the FIR, and further there is no public witness of the alleged recovery and the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.07.2024. 6. It is further contended that the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit, wherein the arrest memo has been annexed. Perusal the arrest memo shows that grounds of arrest has not been mentioned in it. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2025) SCC Online SC 269, has reiterated the decision passed in the case of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and others, (2024) 7 SCC, 576. Para 14, 15 & 16 of the said judgment are extracted herein below: “14. Thus, the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement. Article 22 is included in Part III of the Constitution under the heading of Fundamental Rights. Thus, it is the fundamental right of every person arrested and detained in custody to be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible. If the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest, it would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1). It will also amount to depriving the arrestee of his liberty. The reason is that, as provided in Article 21, no person can be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The procedure established by law also includes what is provided in Article 22(1). Therefore, when a person is arrested without a warrant, and the grounds of arrest are not informed to him, as soon as may be, after the arrest, it will amount to a violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 as well. In a given case, if the mandate of Article 22 is not followed while arresting a person or after arresting a person, it will also violate fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21, and the arrest will be rendered illegal. On the failure to comply with the requirement of informing grounds of arrest as soon as may be after the arrest, the arrest is vitiated. Once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second. 15. We have already referred to what is held in paragraphs 42 and 43 of the decision in the case of Pankaj Bansal1. This Court has suggested that the proper and ideal course of communicating the grounds of arrest is to provide grounds of arrest in writing. Obviously, before a police officer communicates the grounds of arrest, the grounds of arrest have to be formulated. Therefore, there is no harm if the grounds of arrest are communicated in writing. Although there is no requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing, what is stated in paragraphs 42 and 43 of the decision in the case of Pankaj Bansal1 are suggestions that merit consideration. We are aware that in every case, it may 14 not be practicable to implement what is suggested. If the course, as suggested, is followed, the controversy about the non-compliance will not arise at all. The police have to balance the rights of a person arrested with the interests of the society. Therefore, the police should always scrupulously comply with the requirements of Article 22. 16. An attempt was made by learned senior counsel appearing for 1st respondent to argue that after his arrest, the appellant was repeatedly remanded to custody, and now a chargesheet has been filed. His submission is that now, the custody of the appellant is pursuant to the order taking cognizance passed on the charge sheet. Accepting such arguments, with great respect to the learned senior counsel, will amount to completely nullifying Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution. Once it is held that arrest is unconstitutional due to violation of Article 22(1), the arrest itself is vitiated. Therefore, continued custody of such a person based on orders of remand is also vitiated. Filing a charge sheet and order of cognizance will not validate an arrest which is per se unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. We cannot tinker with the most important safeguards provided under Article 22.” 7. State was granted time to verify whether the grounds of arrest of the applicant was communicated to the applicant, but the State did not file such documents. 8. 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 application deserves bail at this stage. 9. Accordingly the bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant, namely, Mehtab, be released on bail, on his executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned. (Alok Mahra, J.) 20.03.2025 Kaushal