Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• The applicant, Yogesh Chand Aggarwal, is in judicial custody in connection with an FIR related to demanding and accepting a bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (!) (!) .
• The applicant was working as a Superintendent in the Office of Deputy Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Rudrapur (!) .
• The prosecution alleges that the applicant demanded Rs. 15,000 to activate a suspended GSTIN, which was recorded during the trap operation, and the money was recovered from him (!) .
• This is the second bail application filed by the applicant; the first was rejected on merit (!) (!) .
• The grounds of arrest, in writing, were not communicated to the applicant at the time of arrest, which is claimed to be a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India (!) (!) (!) .
• The applicant's counsel argues that the constitutional requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing has been violated, thus infringing his fundamental rights, and seeks bail on this basis (!) (!) .
• The respondent contends that the grounds of arrest were indeed communicated to the applicant, either orally or through documents such as the arrest memo and post-trap memo, which included the basic facts constituting the offence (!) (!) (!) .
• The law recognizes that the mode of communication of grounds of arrest can be oral or in writing, but it must effectively serve the purpose of informing the arrestee about the grounds for his arrest (!) (!) (!) .
• The legal position has evolved, with recent judgments emphasizing that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in a manner that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved, and non-compliance that causes prejudice can render the arrest illegal (!) (!) (!) .
• In the present case, the arrest memo, which was supplied to the applicant, contained the basic facts constituting the offence, and thus, the court found that there was sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement (!) .
• Consequently, the court rejected the bail application, holding that there was no violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights under Article 22(1), as the grounds of arrest had been communicated through the arrest memo (!) .

Please let me know if you need any further analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.