IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 4849 of 2025 ==========================================================

ALI MEHNDI @ ALI SAJAD NURANI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR ASHRAF R GHOGHARI(10613) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. DHAWAN JAYSWAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 09/10/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11210005241161 of 2024 registered with Athwalines Police Station, Surat for the offence under Secti0ns

338, 336(2), 336(3), 340, 318(4), 319(2), 61(2) and Section 3(5) of the BNS.

2. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant and learned APP for the Respondent – State.

3. Learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 21.11.2024 . The investigation of the offence is over. The only ground which has been argued by the learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant before this Court is non-communication of grounds of arrest to the Applicant, ‘in writing’, immediately after his arrest. Learned Advocate therefore submitted that the action on the part of the prosecution in not supplying the grounds of arrest to the Applicant ‘in writing’ immediately after his arrest is violative of the provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that as per the latest decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Vihaan Kumar v.

State of Haryana & Anr., it is mandatory upon the authority, arresting the accused, to supply the grounds of arrest, ‘in writing’ immediately after his arrest. In the present case there is nothing on record to indicate that any such grounds of arrest were communicated to the Applicant ‘in writing’. The material available on record only indicates that the relative of the Applicant had been intimated about the arrest of the Applicant which cannot be said to be compliance of the provisions of Artice 22(1) of the Constitution of India in letter and spirit. In that view of the matter, the arrest of the present Applicant gets vitiated. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has further submitted that the Applicant has good reputation in the society and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail. Learned Advocate has sought to rely upon the following judgments in support of his submissions:

(i) Union Territory of Ladakh & Ors.; Union Territory of Ladakh Through its Chief Secretary; Chief Election Officer, UT of Ladakh; District Election Officer (Kargil); Administrative Secretary, Election Department, UT of Ladakh v/s Jammu and Kashmir National Conference & Anr.; Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, through its General Secretary; Election Commission of India reported in 2023 Law Suit (SC) 890.

(ii) Ashish Kakkar v. UT of Chandigarh – Criminal Appeal No. 1518 of

2025 [@ SLP (CRL.) No. 1662/2025].

4. Per contra, learned APP has opposed the present application for grant of regular bail contending that as per the material available on reocrd, the grounds of arrest were already communicated to the present Applicant immediatedly after his arrest and a necessary entry in that regard has also been made in the Case Diary. He further submitted that the Applicant seeks to rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) in support of his arguments. The said judgment was delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court on February 6, 2025. However, prior thereto the Applicant had preferred two Bail Application b