HABIBUR MOLLA @ SONU V. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR 2026: DHC: 508

DATE: 21.01.2026

COURT: High Court of Delhi

BENCH: Justice Saurabh Banerjee

FACTS:

The case arises out of FIR No. 242/2024 registered at Police Station Kapashera, Delhi, under Sections 363/366(A)/370/376/506/120B/34 IPC, Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 3/4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The FIR was lodged on 10.05.2024 by the mother of a minor girl (prosecutrix), alleging that her daughter had gone missing since 8:00 AM that day. During investigation, co-accused Rashid Sardar and Rimpa Sardar were apprehended from Surat, Gujarat, and the minor prosecutrix was recovered from their custody. The co-accused had allegedly lured the girl on the pretext of going to the market and forcibly taken her to Surat via Mumbai, where she was held captive.

The prosecutrix, in her statement under Section 164 CrPC recorded on 24.05.2024, alleged that the applicant, Habibur Molla @ Sonu, had planned for their accommodation in Surat. She further stated that co-accused Rashid Sardar had forcibly established physical relations with her and compelled her to do the same with two other persons for money. The applicant, along with Vipul Kumar and Bhole, was arrested on 28.05.2024 from Surat. In his confession, the applicant allegedly admitted to arranging a room on rent and forcibly having physical relations with the prosecutrix. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on 11.07.2024. The applicant sought regular bail primarily on the ground that he was not informed of the grounds of arrest, violating his fundamental rights under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 CrPC (now Section 47 BNSS).

ISSUES:

The primary issue before the Delhi High Court was whether the arrest of the applicant was illegal due to non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of informing him of the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the corresponding statutory provision, and whether such violation vitiates the arrest and subsequent remand, entitling the applicant to regular bail. A connected issue was whether the serious nature of the allegations involving a minor victim under POCSO and trafficking provisions should outweigh the procedural violation in granting bail.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Delhi High Court allowed the regular bail application and directed the release of the applicant, Habibur Molla @ Sonu, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of the like amount and compliance with several conditions. The court held that the failure to inform the applicant of the grounds of arrest at the time of arrest violated his fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution, rendering the arrest and subsequent remand illegal and vitiated.

The court placed strong reliance on the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1), which requires that every arrested person be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds of arrest. It referred to the Supreme Court decisions in Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India, Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana, and Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra, which have consistently held that informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest in writing is a fundamental and sacrosanct right. The court emphasised that this right enables the arrested person to effectively defend himself, oppose police remand, consult a lawyer, and seek bail. Any infringement of this right, irrespective of the offence or statute involved, vitiates the arrest and the subsequent remand orders. In the present case, the State fairly admitted that the grounds of arrest were not provided to the applicant at the time of his arrest on 28.05.2024 or immediately thereafter, but only at a much later stage. The court held that once such a violation is established, the burden shifts to the investigating agency to prove compliance, which it failed to discharge.

The court observed that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 is inextricably linked with the safeguards under Article 22(1). Even in serious cases involving allegations under POCSO and trafficking provisions, the constitutional violation cannot be ignored or cured merely by the filing of a charge-sheet. The court clarified that while the gravity of the offence and its societal impact are relevant considerations in bail matters, the patent illegality in the arrest process itself was sufficient to grant bail without delving into the merits of the allegations or the evidentiary aspects at this stage. The court rejected the State’s argument that mere absence of written grounds does not invalidate the arrest unless prejudice is shown, holding that the Supreme Court has mandated furnishing of written grounds as a matter of course and without exception. Accordingly, the court concluded that the illegal arrest and remand warranted the release of the applicant on regular bail, subject to stringent conditions to ensure his presence during trial and non-interference with the investigation or witnesses.

ANALYSIS:

The Delhi High Court’s decision underscores the paramount importance of constitutional safeguards under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India in matters of personal liberty, even in grave cases involving sexual offences against a minor under the POCSO Act and trafficking provisions. The court held that the failure to inform the arrestee of the grounds of arrest in writing at the earliest opportunity constitutes a clear violation of a fundamental right, which cannot be treated as a mere procedural irregularity. By relying on the Supreme Court’s consistent jurisprudence in Prabir Purkayastha, Pankaj Bansal, Vihaan Kumar, and Mihir Rajesh Shah, the High Court reiterated that this right is sacrosanct and enables the accused to meaningfully defend himself, seek legal assistance, oppose remand, and apply for bail. The judgment reinforces that once such a violation is established and admitted by the State, the arrest and subsequent remand stand vitiated, irrespective of the seriousness of the allegations or the filing of a charge-sheet.

This ruling strikes a significant balance between individual liberty and societal interest in serious criminal cases. While acknowledging the grave nature of the offences and the need for caution in bail matters involving minor victims, the court prioritised the constitutional illegality in the arrest process over other considerations at this stage. It clarified that procedural safeguards mandated by the Supreme Court cannot be diluted on the ground of the offence’s gravity or by claiming absence of demonstrable prejudice. The decision sends a strong message to investigating agencies that strict compliance with Article 22(1) is non-negotiable. By granting regular bail with stringent conditions, the court has protected the applicant’s fundamental rights without prejudging the merits of the case, leaving the trial court free to evaluate the evidence during the course of the trial.