2025:UHC:10319 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 No.970 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Lalit Sharma and Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal, Advocates for the applicant. Mr. Deepak Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This first bail application has been moved by the applicant seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No.0050 of 2025, under Sections 8 & 20 of N.D.P.S. Act, registered at Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar. 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 16.02.2025 and has, thus, already undergone substantial incarceration. Learned counsel contends that in the present matter, 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. Learned State Counsel, on instructions, submits that the grounds of arrest were, in fact, not communicated in writing to the applicant. 2025:UHC:10319 5. 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.” 6. 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 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 2025:UHC:10319 the court to grant bail when the violation of Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.” 7. 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. 8. The bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant, namely, Sumit Gupta 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 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.) 20.11.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb7393398f 9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB987446351E4D F04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2025.11.20 17:58:28 +05'30'