Vishal Diwakar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 8 August, 2025

Uttarakhand High Court

Vishal Diwakar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 8 August, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

      HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

             Second Bail Application No.168 of 2025
 Vishal Diwakar                                        ........Applicant

                                   Versus

 State of Uttarakhand                                ........Respondent
 Present:-
             Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for the applicant.
             Mr. Vijay Khanduri, Brief Holder for the State.

 Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No. 92 of

2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, Police Station

Kankhal, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

3. This is second bail application of the applicant. His first

bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 09.12.2024.

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 admits 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:
2

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.”

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)
08.08.2025
Jitendra