Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and another
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8742 of 2025 Pyare Lal Prajapati State of U.P. Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bindu Kumari, Janardan Yadav, Kiran Yadav, Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 70 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The accused applicant is involved in Case Crime No.179 of 2024 under Sections 305(a), 317(2), 331(4) B.N.S., Police Station Jangipur, District Ghazipur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 10.12.2024 whereas the F.I.R., has been lodged on 11.12.2024 without there being any plausible explanation of such an inordinate delay. Learned counsel further argued that the applicant was arrested and from his possession, one Horlick, Chavanprash contained etc. along with recovery of Rs. 32,700/- is alleged to have been made from the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that in the arrest memo, no cause has been shown. In support of her submissions, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in [Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 13320 of 2024] and has relief upon paragraph no.11, 14, 21 and 26 which reads as under:- "11. The view taken in the case of Pankaj Bansal Vs Union of India: (2024) 7 SCC 576 was reiterated by this Court in the case of Prabir 2 BAIL No. 8742 of 2025 Purkayastha Vs State(NCT Of Delhi): (2024) 8 SCC 254. In paragraphs nos. 28 and 29, this Court held thus: "28. The language used in Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India regarding the communication of the grounds is exactly the identical. Neither of the constitutional provisions require that the "grounds" of "arrest" or "detention", as the case may be, must be communicated in writing. Thus, interpretation to this important facet of the fundamental right as made by the Constitution Bench while examining the scope of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India would ipso facto apply to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insofar as the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest is concerned. 29. Hence, we have no hesitation in reiterating that the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested in connection with an offence or a person placed under preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation. Non-compliance of this constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be. 3 (emphasis added)" BAIL No. 8742 of 2025 14. Thus, the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement. Article 22 is included in Part III of the Constitution under the heading of Fundamental Rights. Thus, it is the fundamental right of every person arrested and detained in custody to be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible. If the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest, it would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1). It will also amount to depriving the arrestee of his liberty. The reason is that, as provided in Article 21, no person can be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The procedure established by law also includes what is provided in Article 22(1). Therefore, when a person is arrested without a warrant, and the grounds of arrest are not informed to him, as soon as may be, after the arrest, it will amount to a violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 as well. In a given case, if the mandate of Article 22 is not followed while arresting a person or after arresting a person, it will also violate fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21, and the arrest will be rendered illegal. On the failure to comply with the requirement. 21. Therefore, we conclude: a) The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) 4 BAIL No. 8742 of 2025 b) The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person, effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved. c) When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1): d) Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of charge sheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1); e) When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and 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 5 BAIL No. 8742 of 2025 the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not act the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.
Legal Reasoning
26. The stand taken before the High Court was that the appellant's wife was informed about the arrest. Information about the arrest is completely different from the grounds of arrest. The grounds of arrest are different from the arrest memo. The arrest memo incorporates the name of the arrested person, his permanent address, present address, particulars of FIR and Section applied, place of arrest, date and time of arrest, the name of the officer arresting the accused and name, address and phone number of the person to whom information about arrest has been given. We have perused the arrest memo in the present case. The same contains only the information stated above and not the grounds of arrest. The information about the arrest is completely different from information about the grounds of arrest. Mere information of arrest will not amount to furnishing grounds of arrest.” 4. Learned counsel also submits that no identification parade has been conducted. The criminal history of the applicant has also been explained. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 16.12.2024. 5. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the arguments advanced by learned 6 Counsel for the applicants. BAIL No. 8742 of 2025 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed. 7. Let the applicant Pyare Lal Parajapati be released on bail in the aforementioned case crime number on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court. v) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission. v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 8. In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the informant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court. September 11, 2025 S.Ali (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad