2026:UHC:4 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 BA1 No.1763 of 2025 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Shweta Jain, Advocate the complainant. 2. This first bail application has been moved by the applicant seeking regular bail in Case Crime No.21 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Dehradun, District Dehradun. 3. An F.I.R. came to be registered against unknown persons under the aforesaid Sections. During the course of investigation, the applicant was arrested from Calcutta. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was submitted wherein the Investigating Officer recorded a finding that the mobile phone recovered from the possession of the applicant was used for operating the bank account to which the alleged amount was transferred, as the IMEI number of the said device stood linked with the operation of the said account. 4. 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 2026:UHC:4 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. 5. Learned State Counsel had earlier sought time to obtain instructions in the matter. Upon instructions, learned State Counsel now submits that the grounds of arrest do not find mention in the recovery memo. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant, however, submits that the grounds of arrest are duly recorded in the recovery memo and, furthermore, asserts that the applicant is the mastermind and principal beneficiary of the impugned transaction 7. 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.” 8. A bare reading of the aforesaid dictum makes it abundantly clear that the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) 2026:UHC:4 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 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.” 9. 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. 10. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant, namely, Suraj Maula 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=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c04853654 45e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454 C5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.01.02 16:58:18 +05'30'