Uttarakhand High Court
Sompal vs State Of Uttarakhand on 30 July, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Fourth Bail Application No. 8 of 2025
Sompal ........Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Ms. Divya Jain, Advocate for the applicant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant Sompal is in judicial custody in FIR/Case
Crime No. 329 of 2023, under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Doiwala, District
Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.
2. This is fourth bail application of the applicant. His first,
second and third bail applications have been rejected on 14.03.2024,
28.11.2024 and 17.12.2024.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, in fact,
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. It is argued
that 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.
2
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:
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)
30.07.2025
Avneet/