Uttarakhand High Court
Shahbaz Alias Gazi vs State Of Uttarakhand on 23 May, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Second Bail Application No. 86 of 2025
Shahbaz alias Gazi ..........Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Parikshit Saini, 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.
457 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 452,
504, 506 IPC, Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar. He has
sought his release on bail.
2. This is the second bail application. The first bail
application, being BA1 No.1037 of 2024, was rejected on
24.08.2024.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that
the applicant has not been communicated in writing the grounds of
arrest, therefore, he is entitled to bail. He would refer to the
principle of law as laid down in the case of Vihaan Kumar v. State
of Haryana and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269. He would also
submit that this Court has already considered this as a ground of
bail in First Bail Application No. 2528 of 2024, Dinesh Kashyap v.
State of Uttarakhand, decided on 03.04.2025 as well as in First
Bail Application No. 1884 of 2024, Vishal Sindhu v. State of
Uttarakhand, decided on 16.05.2025.
2
5. Learned State Counsel admits that the grounds of
arrest were not communicated to the applicant in writing.
6. In the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra), in para 19, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the requirement under Section
50 of the Code as well as the mandate of Article 22(1) the
Constitution of India, which reads 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 settled law, makes its abundantly
clear that Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is not subject to
the provisions of Section 50 of the Code. The Constitutional
mandate of Article 22(1) has to be fulfilled and if any arrest is made
in its defiance, the dictum as has been laid down in the case of
Vihaan Kumar (supra) in para 21(f) would entail, which reads as
follows.
“21. Therefore, we conclude:
a)…..
b)…..
c)…..
3
d)…..
e)……
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.”
8. In the instant case, admittedly the grounds of arrest
have not been communicated in writing to the applicant.
9. 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.
10. The bail application is allowed.
11. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a
personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
23.05.2025
Avneet/