No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS 13.02.2025 BA1 No. 2513 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Shivam Gulati, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The applicant – Pradeep, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 334 of 2025, under Sections 103(1) of BNS, registered at P.S.- SIDCUL, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. An FIR was lodged by the brother of the deceased on 07.07.2025. As per the allegations in the FIR, applicant and sister of the complainant had a quarrel in the night of 07.07.2025 and the applicant killed the sister of the complainant, by slitting her throat with a knife. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the complainant is not the eye-witness of the incident and he has filed the complaint on the basis of hearsay evidence. It is further submitted that only eye-witness to the incident, as alleged by the prosecution, is one Navin Kumar, who in his statement under Section 180 of BNSS, has stated that he saw one boy fighting with the deceased. It is further contended that no ‘Test Identification Parade’ has been conducted of the witnesses and in the arrest memo, the grounds of arrest has not been mentioned. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that supply of grounds of arrest is mandatory as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, wherein, it is observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that informing an arrestee of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional obligation under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. 7. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the bail application and would submit that the offence alleged is of a grave and heinous nature. 8. Having considered the submissions, under the facts and circumstances of the case and also for the fact that grounds of arrest have not been given in writing to the applicant, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Alok Mahra J.) Ujjwal