Gobind Singh Gaida v. State of Uttarakhand

of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The first bail application was dismissed on 08.04.2025 upon consideration of the merits.

2. The prosecution alleges that the Applicant sexually assaulted the minor victim over a prolonged period. An investigation was carried out, and a charge sheet was filed. The trial is in progress. The present application seeks release on bail on a limited legal ground.

3. Learned Senior Counsel Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, appearing on behalf of the Applicant, submits that the second bail application is predicated solely on a fresh legal ground,namely, the alleged non-compliance with Second Bail Application No. 117 of 2025, Gobind Singh Gaida Vs State of Uttarakhand - 1 Ashish Naithani J. the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the Applicant was not informed of the grounds for arrest in writing at the time of arrest, and such omission vitiates the arrest and justifies the grant of bail.

4. Reliance is placed on the cross-examination of PW4, Sub- Inspector Jyoti Koranga, who admitted that no arrest memo or site plan was prepared. Strong reliance is also placed on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244, and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine SC 322, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that failure to furnish written grounds of arrest renders the custody unlawful.

5. Learned AGA Mr. Girish Chandra Joshi, appearing for the State, opposes the application and submits that the arrest memo (Annexure 3) clearly mentions the grounds of arrest and bears the Applicant’s signature. It is submitted that the relevant case diary and general diary entries reflect that the constitutional requirement was duly complied with at the time of arrest. The prosecution asserts that no procedural illegality vitiates the arrest or custody.

6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The present application, being the second one, is maintainable only insofar as it rests on a demonstrably fresh ground. Accordingly, the Court restricts its scrutiny solely to the Applicant’s contention that his constitutional right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India was violated at the time of arrest, thereby entitling him to release on bail.

8. Article 22(1) of the Constitution states, Second Bail Application No. 117 of 2025, Gobind Singh Gaida Vs State of Uttarakhand - 2 Ashish Naithani J. “No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest...” This right is not a matter of formality but a substantive safeguard against arbitrary deprivation of liberty. It obligates the arresting authority to convey the grounds of arrest in a manner that is intelligible and contemporaneous. The object is to empower the arrested person to seek legal recourse or challenge the detention meaningfully.

9. In Pankaj Bansal, supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down emphatically that oral communication of the grounds of arrest is insufficient. The Court observed that mere recital of such grounds in the case diary or witness certification was not enough to satisfy the mandate of Article 22(1). It was held that written grounds of arrest must be furnished to the arrested person at the time of arrest and that a copy thereof must be given under due acknowledgement. Non- compliance, it was held, would render the arrest unlawful and entitle the arrested person to immediate release.

10. This view was later affirmed and extended in Prabir Purkayastha, supra,where the Court reiterated that “the obligation to serve the grounds of arrest in writing at the time of arrest is integral to Article 22(1)” and cannot be dispensed with even in severe cases involving national security. The Court held that written communication must be served at the time of arrest and later during remand or subsequent proceedings. The absence of this written communication was held to be incurable and sufficient, in itself, to declare the arrest invalid. Second Bail Application No. 117 of 2025, Gobind Singh Gaida Vs State of Uttarakhand - 3 Ashish Naithani J.

11. However, it is equally well-settled that the determination of whether Article 22(1) has been complied with must be made based on the record and facts of each case. In the present case, the arrest memo, marked as Annexure 3 to the Applicant’s affidavit, has been brought on record by the Applicant himself. The document clearly mentions the grounds of arrest and bears the Applicant’s signature acknowledgement. The counter affidavit filed by the State also encloses relevant extracts from the general diary and case diary, which record that the grounds of arrest were communicated to the accused at the time of his apprehension.

12. Though learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant places reliance on an isolated portion of the cross-examination of PW4, where the IO admits that “no site plan was prepared” and “no arrest memo was drawn,” such statement must be read in the context of the overall deposition and the contemporaneous documentary record. It is trite that where official records such as a duly signed arrest memo and case diary entries affirm compliance with constitutional safeguards, such presumption cannot be displaced merely by a loosely worded answer in cross-examination, unless the record is shown to be false, manipulated, or non-existent.

13. This Court is also mindful of the fact that the decisions in Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha, supra, were rendered in the context of statutory frameworks such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, both of which contain enhanced procedural safeguards and stricter standards for arrest.Moreover, in both cases, there was no arrest memo on record, and no written grounds were either prepared or served. By contrast, in Second Bail Application No. 117 of 2025, Gobind Singh Gaida Vs State of Uttarakhand - 4 Ashish Naithani J. the present case, the arrest memo exists, records the grounds of arrest, and bears the accused’s signature.

14. The constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) must undoubtedly be upheld in letter and spirit. However, it does not demand an inflexible ritual, nor is it to be applied in abstraction, divorced from facts. The requirement is effective communication, which can be satisfied if the record demonstrably shows that the arrested person was made aware of the reasons for arrest in a timely and intelligible manner. In the facts of the present case, such compliance is prima facie evident.

15. There is, therefore, no basis to conclude that the Applicant's arrest was carried out in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The decisions cited by the Applicant do not alter the factual foundation of this case, nor do they override the presumption of regularity in official acts, especially when supported by duly signed documentation. ORDER In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present second bail application does not disclose any fresh ground of such weight as would warrant reconsideration of the earlier rejection order dated 08.04.2025. Accordingly, this second bail application, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby rejected. (Ashish Naithani, J.) Dated:16.06.2025 NR/ NITESH RAWAT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bea38a9cb7bca67cc3988ad93d563d95c70eb77fa0ea475 8e401cf436bdce9fb, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=F691686B3C447434E89897BCDC0B6567DCE4B710 8B324FFED3C8A159F3BDD03C, cn=NITESH RAWAT Second Bail Application No. 117 of 2025, Gobind Singh Gaida Vs State of Uttarakhand - 5 Ashish Naithani J.