HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Third Bail Application No. 63 of 2025 Akeel @ Bhuttu …..….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Siddharth Bisht, AGA for the State. Mr. Vinod Sharma and Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocates for the informant. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The applicant Akeel alias Bhuttu is in judicial custody in Case crime No. 1108 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452, 323, 325, 504, 506, 354, 336 & 427 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Manglore, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. This is third bail application of the applicant. His first and second bail applications have already been rejected on 28.08.2024 and 03.12.2024, respectively. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the instant matter, the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the applicant in writing; it makes a ground for bail in view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269 and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356. 2 5. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the applicant had sought short term bail on medical grounds, but he did not proceed for treatment; instead, he filed an affidavit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in an SLP. He submits that the grounds, which have been taken by the applicant now at this stage, were available with the applicant, when his first and second bail applications were rejected; these grounds are not available for the applicant now. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Satya Pal v. State of U.P., 1998 3 Crimes (HC) 249. 6. In the case of Satya Pal (supra), the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held that “fresh arguments in a second bail application for an accused cannot be allowed to be advanced on these very facts that were available to the accused while the first bail application was moved and rejected”. 7. Learned State Counsel admits that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the applicants in writing. 8. In fact, in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra), in para 21, the principle has been summed up by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in para 21(a) and 21(f), 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); …………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………….. 3 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.” 9. A bare reading of the findings recorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) at para 21(a), makes it clear that informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and reading it with the finding recorded in para 21(f) makes it abundantly clear that when a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. 10. 10. It has further been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), wherein in para 56, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the law as under:- “56. In conclusion, it is held that: i) The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes including offences under Penal Code, 1860 (now BNS 2023); ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands; iii) In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it be so done orally. The said grounds be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the magistrate. iv) In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to be set free.” 4 11. It is true that successive bail applications on the same grounds may not be taken or, in fact, the grounds available earlier, if not taken, may not be considered in the second bail application, unless they go to the root of the matter or relates to constitutional rights. But, here it is a case of violation of constitutional rights of the applicant, which should not be denied. 12. 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. 13. The bail application is allowed. 14. 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.) 20.11.2025 Avneet/