Reserved on - 11.12.2025 Delivered on - 17.12.2025 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

2nd Bail Application No. 164 of 2025 Yogesh Chand Aggarwal ........Applicant Versus Central Bureau of Investigation .….Respondent Present:-

Mr. A.S. Rawat, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Raj Kumar Singh and Mr. Shashwat Sarin, Advocates for the applicant.

Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

The applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.

RC0072024(A)0002 dated 24.02.2024 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“the PC Act”), Police Station CBI SPE Dehradun. He seeks his release on bail.

2. According to the prosecution, the applicant was working as Superintendent in the Office of Deputy Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. The wife of the informant was running a business. Her Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (“GSTIN”) was suspended. When the applicant was approached, he demanded Rs. 15,000/- to activate the GSTIN. The matter was reported to the Central Bureau of Investigation (“the CBI”). After preliminary verification, FIR was lodged. In fact, when the demand was made by the applicant, it was recorded by the informant. Finally, a trap was made. On the date of trap, according to the prosecution, the applicant demanded money by gesture, which was given to him. His hand wash turned pink and the money was recovered from him.

3. This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application has already been rejected on merit on 13.08.2024.

4. Second bail application has been filed on the ground that at the time of arrest, the grounds of arrest, in writing, were never communicated to the applicant, which is violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

5. The CBI has filed its response. According to the CBI, the applicant was informed about the grounds of arrest.

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

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the ground grounds of arrest are required to be given in writing. It is the mandate under Article 22 of the Constitution of India. It is argued that if certain documents have been given containing the grounds of arrest, it is not compliance of the constitutional provisions. Learned Senior Counsel also raised the following submissions in his arguments:-

(i) Reason of arrest is different than the grounds of arrest. In the instant case, reason of arrest has been communicated to the applicant.

(ii) The applicant was not provided pre-trap memo, post-trap memo, remand application or first remand order.

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that in the instant case, since the grounds of arrest, in writing, have not been communicated to the applicant, it is violation of the Fundamental Rights of the applicant as guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution of India and, as such, the applicant is entitled to bail.

9. In support of his arguments, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgments in the cases of Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India and others, (1980) 4 SCC 531, Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India and others, (1981)2 SCC 427, Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) 7 SCC 576, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254, Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2025) 5 SCC 799 and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the CBI submits that the objective behind Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is that an arrestee should be communicated/informed as to why he is arrested, so that he may prepare for his defence. It is argued that initially giving information to the arrestee as to why he is arrested, was considered sufficient compliance of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India. Reference is made to the judgment in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others v. Union of India and others, (2023) 12 SCC 1. But,