HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Bail Application No. 105 of 2025 Anchit Goel ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Vijay Khanduri, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Lalit Shrma, Advocate for the informant. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in Criminal Case No.330 of 2024, State Vs. Anchit Goel and Others, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, arising out of Case Crime No.111 of 2024, under Sections 308(5), 351(3), and 79 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Kelakhera, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused. 3. This is the second bail application. The first bail application, being BA1 No.2113 of 2024, was rejected on 06.01.2025. 2 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, in fact, the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the applicant in writing, and it makes a ground for bail, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269. 5. Learned State Counsel gives a statement that the grounds of arrest, in writing, were not communicated to the applicant. 6. In para 21 of the judgment in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra), 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); b) The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved; c) When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1); d) Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of chargesheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1); 3 e) When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and 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.” 7. 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. 8. The bail application is allowed. 9. 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) 01.07.2025 Ravi Bisht