SL. No. Dat e Of f ice Not es, r epor t s, or ders or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS 2026:UHC:1617 BA 2 nd No.2 3 of 2 0 2 6 Hon ’ble Ash ish Nait h an i, J. Mr. Pranav Singh, learned counsel for the Applicant. 2. Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. The present Second Bail Application has been moved by the Applicant - Nardeshwar Singh, aged about 38 years, S/o Brij Kishore, R/o Village Ward No. 1, Village and Post Rajpur, Jounapur, Police Station Patori, District Samastipur, Bihar. The Applicant is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 392 of 2024, registered at Police Station Kotwali Gangnahar, District Haridwar, under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 4. That the first bail application of the Applicant bearing number BA1/1917/2025 was rejected by this Court during vacation bench on 16.01.2026. 5. Heard Mr. Pranav Singh, learned counsel for the Applicant, and Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned AGA for the State, and perused the record. 6. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant lodged the FIR on 03.08.2024 against the Applicant and other co-accused persons associated with Vidyanchal Finlease Private Limited, Branch Roorkee. It is alleged that the Applicant, in collusion with other co-accused persons, committed embezzlement of approximately Rs. 30-40 lakhs by withdrawing money from the ATM cards of investors, subsequently showing them as defaulters, and thereafter failing to return the investors’ money. 7. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has been falsely implicated and is innocent person and that the Applicant was not informed about the grounds of arrest in writing at the time of arrest by the arresting officer. Counsel further submits that there is clear violation of mandatory provisions of section 50 Cr.P.C (now section 47 of BNSS, 2023) as well as Article 22(1) of Constitution of India. Learned counsel places reliance upon Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Anr. 2025 SCC Online SC 269. 8. Learned counsel for the State submitted that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined several witnesses connected with the alleged transaction and recorded their statements under the relevant provisions of law. The statements so recorded, along with the material collected during investigation, were analysed by the investigating agency. Upon consideration of the said material, the investigating agency formed an opinion that the present accused had acted in concert with the other accused persons and was a participant in the alleged conspiracy. Learned counsel further submits that the present accused has been charge-sheeted under Sections 120B, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record, this Court finds that the arrest memo which has been brought on record does not disclose that the grounds of arrest were communicated to the Applicant in writing at the time of arrest. The memo of arrest annexed with the record merely records the factum of arrest but does not reflect any particulars indicating that the grounds of arrest were formally conveyed to the Applicant. 10. The mandate contained under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which now finds place in Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read with the constitutional guarantee embodied in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, requires that the person arrested must be informed of the grounds of arrest. The material placed before this Court does not prima facie demonstrate compliance with the said statutory and constitutional requirement. In the absence of such indication in the arrest memo, the Court is constrained to note that the mandatory requirement regarding communication of grounds of arrest does not appear to have been duly complied with in the present case. 11. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the Applicant has made out a case for grant of bail at this stage. 12. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. ( Ash ish Nait h an i, J.) 2 5 .0 2 .2 026 Nitesh/