2025:UHC:4038 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI 8th May, 2025 SECOND BAIL APPLICATION NO. 87 of 2025 Pradeep Suyal …Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate. Counsel for the State : Mr. G.C. Joshi, A.G.A. along with Rakesh Negi, Brief Holder. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. This is the applicant’s second bail application. The First Bail Application (No. 2054 of 2024) was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.02.2025, primarily in view of the serious nature of allegations and prima facie evidence indicating fraudulent inducement of deposits exceeding Rs. 30 lakhs from multiple victims, including dishonoured cheques and financial mismanagement. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present bail application is being filed on the basis of subsequent developments and fresh grounds that have arisen after the rejection of the earlier application dated 24.02.2025. 3. It is submitted that the charge-sheet in the present case has now been filed on 27.12.2024, and the investigation stands concluded. As such, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required. 4. It is further submitted that one of the co-accused, namely Deepika Panwar, who was similarly placed and also named in the FIR, has been exonerated during investigation, Second Bail Application No. 87 of 2025, “Pradeep Suyal vs. State of Uttarakhand”. Ashish Naithani, J. 2 2025:UHC:2250 and no chargesheet has been filed against her. It is submitted that the case of the applicant stands on similar footing and, therefore, the principle of parity ought to apply. 5. It is next submitted that the offences under Sections 22 and 4 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019, are bailable by virtue of Section 28 of the said Act. Insofar as the allegations under the Indian Penal Code are concerned, it is argued that the applicant did not receive any money in his personal account, did not issue or sign any cheque, and was not entrusted with any funds directly, thereby negating the ingredients of Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC. 6. Furthermore, learned counsel further submits that the arrest of the applicant was effected in violation of statutory and constitutional safeguards, particularly under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that while the arrest memo records intimation to the applicant’s brother, no written grounds of arrest were ever furnished to the applicant himself at the time of arrest, despite such requirement being mandatory under law. 7. Reliance is placed on the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 4 SCC 708, wherein the Court reiterated that the fundamental right under Article 22(1) includes the right to be informed promptly and in writing of the grounds of arrest. 8. It was categorically held that mere verbal disclosure or oral intimation to a relative is insufficient and that failure to communicate the written grounds vitiates the arrest procedure. It is urged that this violation assumes significance given that the applicant was arrested nearly three months after the FIR was lodged and in the absence of any imminent necessity for Second Bail Application No. 87 of 2025, “Pradeep Suyal vs. State of Uttarakhand”. Ashish Naithani, J. 3 2025:UHC:2250 custodial interrogation, thereby rendering the arrest arbitrary and excessive. It is thus contended that this violation strengthens the applicant’s claim for bail on constitutional grounds. 9. Learned State Counsel opposes the present bail application, submitting that the allegations against the applicant pertain to serious economic offences involving large- scale financial fraud. It is submitted that the applicant, along with co-directors of Jan Sanchay Nidhi Ltd., collected deposits from over 40 individuals under the guise of recurring and fixed deposit schemes, promising high returns, and subsequently failed to return the amounts upon maturity. 10. It is further submitted that the magnitude of the misappropriation exceeds ₹30 lakhs, and the investigation revealed that the applicant was actively involved in the financial operations of the company, including having signatory authority over its bank accounts. Statements of multiple victims, including Vikram Chand, Reena Devi, Surat Singh, and others, have been recorded, corroborating the allegations. 11. Learned State Counsel contends that mere filing of the charge-sheet is not sufficient to dilute the gravity of the offence or entitle the applicant to bail. It is argued that the financial fraud was not isolated but involved systemic inducement of depositors over time and, therefore, the applicant's continued custody is necessary to ensure the integrity of the trial and public confidence in the financial regulatory system. 12. As regards the procedural grounds raised by the applicant, it is submitted that the arrest was carried out after due compliance with statutory procedure and that intimation of the arrest was duly made to a family member. It is contended that the arrest was necessitated by non-cooperation of the applicant during preliminary inquiry, and that mere technical Second Bail Application No. 87 of 2025, “Pradeep Suyal vs. State of Uttarakhand”. Ashish Naithani, J. 4 2025:UHC:2250 non-compliance, even if assumed, does not justify release on bail when weighed against the gravity of the offence and the likelihood of the applicant absconding or influencing witnesses. 13. It is lastly urged that the exoneration of one co- accused during investigation does not automatically entitle the applicant to bail, especially when the role and conduct of the applicant are distinguishable on the facts. The application is, therefore, opposed on all counts. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 15. This is the applicant’s second bail application. The first application was dismissed by this Court on 24.02.2025 after considering the gravity of allegations and the material then on record. A subsequent application for bail must necessarily be founded on a material change in circumstance or supervening legal development which bears upon the liberty of the applicant. 16. The primary ground urged in the present application is an alleged procedural infirmity in the arrest of the applicant, namely, that the grounds of arrest were not furnished to him in writing, in violation of the mandate of Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 17. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the decisions in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 4 SCC 708 and Vihan Kumar v. State of Haryana, decided on 07.02.2025, to submit that mere oral intimation or disclosure to a family member does not satisfy the constitutional safeguard; rather, written communication to the arrestee himself is mandatory and its breach renders the arrest itself procedurally infirm. 18. However, on a careful examination of the material on record, it emerges that the applicant was produced before Second Bail Application No. 87 of 2025, “Pradeep Suyal vs. State of Uttarakhand”. Ashish Naithani, J. 5 2025:UHC:2250 the learned Magistrate on 02.10.2024, and a remand sheet dated the same day was furnished to him. This remand sheet explicitly sets out the factual basis and legal grounds for arrest. It bears the applicant’s signature and confirms his awareness of the reasons for his detention. 19. The requirement of Article 22(1), as interpreted in the decisions cited above, is to ensure that an arrestee is promptly informed in writing of the grounds of arrest. The object of the law is not to insist on a particular format, such as an ‘arrest memo’, but to secure effective communication of arrest grounds. In the present case, the remand sheet fulfils this constitutional requirement. Hence, the applicant's contention that the arrest is vitiated by procedural illegality does not withstand scrutiny. 20. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that since the investigation has concluded and the chargesheet was filed on 27.12.2024, continued custody is unwarranted. It is also submitted that one of the co-accused, namely Deepika Panwar, has been exonerated during the investigation and, therefore, the applicant should be treated similarly on the principle of parity. 21. This Court is not persuaded by these arguments. The mere filing of the chargesheet does not entitle an accused to bail as a matter of right, particularly in economic offences where trial integrity, public confidence, and the financial system’s credibility are involved. As for parity, the case of co- accused Deepika Panwar has been found distinguishable during the investigation. The applicant’s role is alleged to be central and active, with material on record indicating his involvement in decision-making and operational control of the financial entity in question. The exoneration of one co-accused, without more, cannot be the basis for invoking parity, especially when Second Bail Application No. 87 of 2025, “Pradeep Suyal vs. State of Uttarakhand”. Ashish Naithani, J. 6 2025:UHC:2250 the allegations against the present applicant are of greater magnitude and depth. 22. Learned State Counsel has rightly drawn attention to the scale and pattern of financial misappropriation, involving more than ₹30 lakhs collected from over 40 depositors under the guise of recurring and fixed deposit schemes. Statements of victims recorded during investigation implicate the applicant, and there is prima facie evidence of his signatory authority over bank accounts and control over financial affairs of the company. These facts reflect a premeditated and coordinated fraudulent scheme that impacts not only individual victims but public trust in regulated deposit systems. 23. While the judgments in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, [(2012) 1 SCC 40] and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, [(2022) 10 SCC 51] underscore that pre-trial incarceration should not be punitive, they do not override considerations of larger public interest, economic integrity, and the applicant's role in serious financial wrongdoing. In the present case, those considerations are squarely engaged. 24. Accordingly, in view of the fact that the primary ground raised in the present application—relating to non- furnishing of arrest grounds—has no factual foundation in light of the remand sheet dated 02.10.2024, and in the absence of any other new or supervening circumstance, this Court does not find it a fit case for grant of bail. 25. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected. ___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt: 08.05.2025 SB Second Bail Application No. 87 of 2025, “Pradeep Suyal vs. State of Uttarakhand”. Ashish Naithani, J. SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09 c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BE D00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2025.05.16 17:37:55 +05'30'