Uttarakhand High Court
Prem Shankar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 4 August, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No. 2486 of 2024
Prem Shankar ........Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. V.K. Guglani, Advocate for the applicant, through video conferencing.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant Prem Shankar is in judicial custody in FIR No.
25 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 120-B, 34 IPC and Section 66-D
of the Information Technology Act, 2000, Police Station Cyber Crime
Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on
bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the
instant case, the grounds of arrest had never been communicated to
the applicant in writing as mandated under Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. He submits that in view of the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of
Haryana and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269, in case the grounds
of arrest are not communicated in writing, it makes out a case for bail.
4. Learned State Counsel admits that the grounds of arrest,
in writing, were not communicated to the applicant.
2
5. 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);
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………..
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.”
6. 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.
7. The bail application is allowed.
8. 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)
04.08.2025
Avneet/