Pradeep Suyal v. St at e of Ut t arakhand

first applicat ion was dism issed by t his Court on 24.02.2025 aft er considering t he gravit y of allegat ions and t he m at erial t hen on record. A subsequent applicat ion for bail m ust necessarily be founded on a m at erial change in circum st ance or superv ening legal dev elopm ent which bear s upon t he libert y of t he applicant .

16. The prim ar y ground urged in t he pr esent applicat ion is an alleged procedural infirm it y in t he arr est of t he applicant , nam ely, t hat t he grounds of arr est w ere not furnished t o him in writ ing, in violat ion of t he m andat e of Sect ion 50 of t he Code of Crim inal Procedure, 1973 and Art icle 22( 1) of t he Const it ut ion of I ndia.

17. Lear ned counsel for t he applicant has relied upon t he decisions in Pr a b i r Pu r k a y a st h a v . St a t e ( N CT o f D e l h i ) , ( 2 0 2 4 ) 4 SCC 7 0 8 a n d Vi h a n K u m a r v . St a t e o f H a r y a n a , decided on 07.02.2025, t o subm it t hat m er e oral int im at ion or disclosur e t o a fam ily m em ber does not sat isfy t he const it ut ional safeguard; rat her, writ t en com m unicat ion t o t he arr est ee him self is m andat ory and it s breach r enders t he arrest it self procedurally infir m .

18. Howev er , on a careful exam inat ion of t he m at erial on record, it em erges t hat t he applicant was produced befor e Second Bail Application No. 87 of 2025, “Pradeep Suyal vs. State of Uttarakhand”. Ashish Naithani, J. 5 t he lear ned Magist rat e on 02.10.2024, and a rem and sheet dat ed t he sam e day was fur nished t o him . This rem and sheet explicit ly set s out t he fact ual basis and legal grounds for arrest . I t bear s t he applicant ’s signat ure and confirm s his awar eness of t he r easons for his det ent ion.

19. The r equirem ent of Art icle 22( 1) , as int er pr et ed in t he decisions cit ed above, is t o ensure t hat an ar rest ee is prom pt ly infor m ed in writ ing of t he grounds of ar rest . The obj ect of t he law is not t o insist on a part icular form at , such as an ‘arr est m em o’, but t o secur e effect ive com m unicat ion of arrest grounds. I n t he pr esent case, t he r em and sheet fulfils t his const it ut ional requirem ent . Hence, t he applicant 's cont ent ion t hat t he arr est is vit iat ed by procedural illegalit y does not wit hst and scrut iny .

20. Lear ned counsel for t he applicant has furt her ar gued t hat since t he invest igat ion has concluded and t he char gesheet was filed on 27.12.2024, cont inued cust ody is unwar rant ed. I t is also subm it t ed t hat one of t he co- accused, nam ely Deepika Panwar, has been exonerat ed dur ing t he inv est igat ion and, t her efore, t he applicant should be t reat ed sim ilarly on t he principle of parit y.

21. This Court is not persuaded by t hese argum ent s. The m ere filing of t he char gesheet does not ent it le an accused t o bail as a m at t er of right , part icularly in econom ic offences wher e t rial int egrit y, public confidence, and t he financial syst em ’s cr edibilit y are involved. As for parit y, t he case of co- accused Deepika Panwar has been found dist inguishable during t he inv est igat ion. The applicant ’s role is alleged t o be cent ral and act ive, wit h m at erial on recor d indicat ing his involvem ent in decision- m aking and operat ional cont rol of t he financial ent it y in quest ion. The exoner at ion of one co- accused, wit hout m ore, cannot be t he basis for invoking parit y, especially when Second Bail Application No. 87 of 2025, “Pradeep Suyal vs. State of Uttarakhand”. Ashish Naithani, J. 6 t he allegat ions against t he pr esent applicant ar e of great er m agnit ude and dept h.

22. Lear ned St at e Counsel has right ly draw n at t ent ion t o t he scale and pat t ern of financial m isappropriat ion, involving more than ₹30 lakhs collected from over 40 depositors under t he guise of r ecur ring and fix ed deposit schem es. St at em ent s of vict im s recor ded during invest igat ion im plicat e t he applicant , and t here is prim a facie evidence of his signat ory aut horit y over bank account s and cont rol over financial affair s of t he com pany. These fact s reflect a prem edit at ed and coordinat ed fraudulent schem e t hat im pact s not only individual vict im s but public t rust in regulat ed deposit syst em s.

23. While t he j udgm ent s in Sa n j a y Ch a n d r a v . CB I , [ ( 2 0 1 2 ) 1 SCC 4 0 ] a n d Sa t e n d e r K u m a r A n t i l v . CBI , [ ( 2 0 2 2 ) 1 0 SCC 5 1 ] under scor e t hat pre- t rial incarcer at ion should not be punit ive, t hey do not override considerat ions of larger public int er est , econom ic int egrit y, and t he applicant 's role in serious financial w rongdoing. I n t he present case, t hose considerat ions are squarely engaged.

24. Accordingly, in view of t he fact t hat t he prim ary ground raised in t he pr esent applicat ion—relat ing t o non- furnishing of arr est grounds—has no fact ual foundat ion in light of t he rem and sheet dat ed 02.10.2024, and in t he absence of any ot her new or superv ening cir cum st ance, t his Court does not find it a fit case for grant of bail.

25. Accordingly, t his bail applicat ion is r ej ect ed. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A SH I SH N A I TH A N I , J. Dt : 08.05.2025 SB DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09 c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BE D00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA SHIKSHA BINJOLA Second Bail Application No. 87 of 2025, “Pradeep Suyal vs. State of Uttarakhand”. Ashish Naithani, J.