MOHD IMRAN @ RAJA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Court: High Court of Uttarakhand
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDRA MAITHANI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Uttarakhand judgment dated 2025-07-17. MOHD IMRAN @ RAJA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Bail Application No. 73 of 2025 Mohd. Imran @ Raja …..... Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …. …. Respondent Present:- Mr. Vikas Singh Yadav, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Vijay Khanduri, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No. 69 of 2024, under Sections 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Vanbhoolpura, District Nainital. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused. 3. This is the second bail application. The first bail application, being BA1 No. 1831 of 2024, was dismissed in non-prosecution on 05. 11. 2024. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, in fact, the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the applicant in writing, and 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 Learned State Counsel gives a statement that the grounds of arrest, in writing, were not communicated to the In para 21 of the judgment in the case of Vihaan supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as “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.
” Having considered, this Court is of the view that case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 17. 07. 2025 Ravi Bisht
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.