Allowed¶8

Juneja Dilawar v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC9 Jul 2026BA2/75/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second bail application allowed by Uttarakhand High Court (Alok Mahra, J.) on 09-07-2026 in BA2/75/2026 (Juneja Dilawar v. State of Uttarakhand); FIR/Case Crime No. 33 of 2025, Chalani Police Station, Almora; offences under Sections 61(2), 308(5), 318(4) B.N.S. 2023; first bail application rejected 31.03.2026; Article 22 grounds-of-arrest-in-writing contention raised citing Coordinate Bench judgment of 20.11.2025 in Third BA No. 63 of 2025 and Mahir/Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharastra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356; merits not opined upon; release on personal bond plus two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned; all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ¶8

SL.
No
.

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

BA2/75/2026
Juneja Dilawar
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Akshay Latwal and Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned
A.G.A. assisted by Mr. Nikhil Bisht, learned counsel for the
State of Uttarakhand.

2.
This is the second Bail Application. The first Bail
Application was rejected by this Court on 31.03.2026.
3.
The present Bail Application has been moved by the
Applicant, who is in judicial custody in connection with
FIR/Case Crime No. 33 of 2025, registered at Chalani Police
Station Almora, District Almora, for offences punishable under
Sections 61(2), 308(5) and 318(4) of the B.N.S., 2023.
4.
Learned counsel for the applicant, while pressing the
second Bail Application, submits that the grounds of arrest
were not communicated to the applicant in writing, which is a
constitutional mandate under Article 22 of the Constitution of
India. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance
upon a judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated
20.11.2025, passed in Third Bail Application No. 63 of 2025,
wherein, after referring to various judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, including Mahir Rajesh Shah vs. State of
Maharastra and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356, the
legal position has been reiterated by the Coordinate Bench in
paragraph 10, which reads as follows:
“10.
It hasfurther been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme

court in the Case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), wherein in paragraph 56, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the law as under:- 56. In conclusion, it is held that: (i) The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes, including offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now B.N.S., 2023); (ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands; (iii) In cases where the arresting officer/person is unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after the arrest, the same may initially be communicated orally. The said grounds shall thereafter be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and, in any case, at least two hours prior to the production of the arrestee before the Magistrate for remand proceedings; (iv) In case of non-compliance with the above requirements, the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal, and the person concerned would be entitled to be set at liberty.”
5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposed the Bail
Application and submitted that the first Bail Application was
rejected by this Court after due consideration of all the relevant
facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that all material aspects have already been duly considered and dealt with while rejecting the first Bail Application, and that no new circumstance or substantial change in facts has been brought on record by the Applicant so as to warrant consideration of the present second Bail Application.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds
that, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the
case, and without expressing any opinion on the merits thereof,
the Applicant has been able to make out a fit case for grant of
bail.
7. Accordingly, the Second Bail Application is allowed.
8. Let the Applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each in the like

court in the Case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), wherein in
paragraph 56, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the law
as under:-
56. In conclusion, it is held that:
(i) The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee of
the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all
statutes, including offences under the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (now B.N.S., 2023);
(ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in
writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands;
(iii) In cases where the arresting officer/person is unable
to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon
after the arrest, the same may initially be communicated
orally. The said grounds shall thereafter be communicated
in writing within a reasonable time and, in any case, at
least two hours prior to the production of the arrestee
before the Magistrate for remand proceedings;
(iv) In case of non-compliance with the above
requirements, the arrest and subsequent remand would be
rendered illegal, and the person concerned would be
entitled to be set at liberty.”

5.
Per contra, learned State Counsel opposed the Bail

Application and submitted that the first Bail Application was

rejected by this Court after due consideration of all the relevant

facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that all
material aspects have already been duly considered and dealt
with while rejecting the first Bail Application, and that no new
circumstance or substantial change in facts has been brought
on record by the Applicant so as to warrant consideration of the
present second Bail Application.

6.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon

perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds

that, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the

case, and without expressing any opinion on the merits thereof,

the Applicant has been able to make out a fit case for grant of

bail.

7.
Accordingly, the Second Bail Application is allowed.

8.
Let the Applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a
personal bond and two reliable sureties, each in the like

amo 9.	unt, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
SB	(Alok Mahra, J.) 09-07-2026

amo
9.

unt, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

(Alok Mahra, J.)
09-07-2026

Juneja Dilawar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juneja Dilawar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravinder Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Dehradun

Munne Khan Vs State of Uttarakhand

Thapadi Devi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Parikshit Chaudhary Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sadhvi Renuka(Richa) Vs State of Uttarakhand