2026:UHC:14 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s 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 BA3 No.66 of 2025 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This third bail application has been moved by the applicant seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No.125 of 2024, under Sections 323, 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376 (AB), 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 5(1), 5(m)/ 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Piran Kaliyar, District Haridwar. 3. The 1st and 2nd bail applications moved by the applicant were rejected on merits vide orders dated 05.05.2025 and 18.09.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the instant crime, has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 29.03.2024. Learned counsel contends that in the present matter the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the applicant either in writing or in any meaningful oral form, thereby violating the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as the statutory safeguard under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Placing reliance on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269, it is argued that non-communication of the grounds of arrest renders the arrest and the consequential remand orders illegal, entitling the applicant to be released on bail notwithstanding any statutory restrictions. 2026:UHC:14 5. Learned State Counsel had earlier sought time to obtain instructions in the matter. Pursuant thereto, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State stating that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the applicant either at the time of arrest or at the time of his remand, and that, in the meantime, the evidence in the case has already been closed. 6. In the case of Vihan Kumar (supra), particularly in para 19, the Hon’ble Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the constitutional safeguard enshrined under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, observing as follows: “19. An argument was sought to be canvassed that in view of sub-Section (1) of Section 50 of CrPC, there is an option to communicate to the person arrested full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or the other grounds for the arrest. Section 50 cannot have the effect of diluting the requirement of Article 22(1). If held so, Section 50 will attract the vice of unconstitutionality. Section 50 lays down the requirement of communicating the full particulars of the offence for which a person is arrested to him. The ‘other grounds for such arrest’ referred to in Section 50(1) have nothing to do with the grounds of arrest referred to in Article 22(1). Section 47 of the BNSS is the corresponding provision. Therefore, what we have held about Section 50 will apply to Section 47 of the BNSS.” 7. A bare reading of the aforesaid dictum makes it abundantly clear that the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is independent of and not subject to the provisions of Section 50 of the Code. Compliance with Article 22(1) is mandatory, and any arrest made in contravention of this constitutional requirement would attract the consequence laid down in para 21(f) of Vihan Kumar (supra), which reads as under: “21(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 2026:UHC:14 the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.” 8. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves bail at this stage. 9. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant, namely, Nazim be released on bail, on executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 02.01.2026 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a 20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109 CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.01.02 17:00:17 +05'30'