RAMPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The criminal revision is preferred against the impugned order dtd. 9/1/2025 passed by learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption/IV Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Misc. Case No. 17 of 2025 (SST No. 27 of 2024), State Vs. Rampal in Case Crime No. 06 of 2020, under Sec. 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "P.C. Act") and Sec. 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Vigilance Sector Dehradun, District Dehradun, by which, the learned Court has refused to release the applicant on an application moved by him.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the arrest and further remand of the revisionist is bad in the eyes of law because the grounds of arrest have never been communicated to them in writing, as mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and others, (2024) 7 SCC, 576, Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 and Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2025) SCC Online SC 269. Therefore, it is argued that the remand order may be set aside and revisionist may be released forthwith.