Uttarakhand High Court
Waqar Khan vs State Of Uttarakhand on 14 July, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Third Bail Application No.33 of 2025
Waqar Khan ........Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Vikas Singh Yadav, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. V.S. Rawat, D.A.G. for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No. 700 of 2023,
under Section 8/22/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Kotwali Gangnahar, District
Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. This is third bail application of the applicant. His first bail
application was dismissed as withdrawn on 07.06.2024. His second bail
application was rejected on merits on 19.02.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that in the
instant case, grounds of arrest were not communicated in writing to the
applicant, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case Vihan Kumar v. State of Haryana and
another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269, the applicant is entitled to bail.
5. Learned State counsel would submit that as per
instructions, the grounds of arrest were not communicated in writing to
the applicant.
2
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)…..
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.”
3
8. 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.
9. The bail application is allowed.
10. 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)
14.07.2025
Jitendra