HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL

Criminal Revision No.142 of 2025

Parvej ………Revisionist

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and another ………Respondents

Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the revisionist.

Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr.

Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State.

Judgment Reserved on 07.08.2025 Judgment deliverved on 25.09.2025

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.( Oral)

The present criminal revision has been

preferred by the revisionist challenging the order dated 21.01.2025/25.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional C.J.M., Roorkee, Haridwar whereby in relation to FIR No.0025 of 2025, P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, under Sections 316(3), 318(4), 61(2) of BNS, the

revisionist was remanded to custody.

2. The factual matrix giving rise to the present proceedings is that the complainant/respondent no. 2 alleged that the revisionist, who was employed with Axis Bank, by taking undue advantage of the complainant and his brother’s illiteracy, hatched a conspiracy. The accounts of the complainant/respondent no.2 linked with his own mobile number, and thereafter transferred a sum of Rs.54,000,00/-from their accounts to his own accounts

and those of his relatives on different dates.

3. On the basis of those allegations, an FIR dated 20.01.2025 was registered as Case Crime No.0025 of 2025 at P.S. Kotwali, Roorkee, Haridwar under Sections

316(5), 318(4), 316(6) & 61(2) of BNSS, 2023. The revisionist was arrested on 21.01.2025 and taken into custody.

4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has assailed the impugned remand order primarily on the ground that the mandatory requirement of informing the accused of the grounds of arrest was not complied with. He also submits that no written grounds of arrest were served upon the revisionist and neither he nor his family members were informed of the same.

5. In support of this submission, reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and others, (2024) 7 SCC 576, wherein it was held that the communication of grounds of arrest must be in writing to enable the accused to effectively exercise his right to bail and defend himself. Furthermore, the provisions of Article 22(1) of Constitution of India, has also been interpreted in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as follows:-

“38. In this regard, we may note that Article 22(1) of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. This being the fundamental right guaranteed to the arrested person, the mode of conveying information of the grounds of arrest must necessarily be meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose. It may be noted that Section 45 PMLA enables the person arrested under Section 19 thereof to seek release on bail but it postulates that unless the twin conditions prescribed thereunder are satisfied, such a person would not be entitled to grant of bail. The twin conditions set out in the provision are that, firstly, the court must be satisfied, after giving an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the application for release, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the arrested person is not guilty of the offence and, secondly, that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. To meet this requirement, it would be essential for the arrested person to be aware of the grounds on which the authorised officer arrested him/her under Section 19 and the basis for the officer's “reason to believe” that he/she is guilty of an offence punishable under the 2002 Act. It is only if the arrested person has knowledge of these facts that he/she would be in a position to plead and prove before the Special Court that there are grounds to believe that he/she is not guilty of such offence, so as to avail the relief of bail. Therefore, communication of the grounds of arrest, as ma