HABIBUR MOLLA @ SONU v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

By virtue of the present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231, the applicant, namely Habibur Molla @ Sonu S/o Sirajul Molla seeks grant of regular bail in proceeding arising out of FIR No.242/2024 registered at Police Station Kapashera, Delhi, under Section(s) 363/366(A)/370/376/506/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602, 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ BAIL APPLN. 3249/2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:21.01.2026 02:36:37 Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 20123 and Sections 3/4 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act. 2. Briefly put, it is the case of the prosecution against the applicant that an

FIR came to be registered on 10.05.2024 at the instance of the mother of prosecutrix4, alleging that her minor daughter had been missing since 08:00 A.M. on 10.05.2024.

During the course of investigation, the co-accused namely Rashid Sardar and Rimpa Sardar were apprehended from New Bamroli Road, near Bank of Baroda, Surat, Gujarat, and the prosecutrix was recovered from their custody. The said co-accused, who were residing in the same vicinity as the prosecutrix, had lured her on the pretext of going to the market and thereafter forcibly taken her to Surat, Gujarat, via Mumbai, where she was held captive.

On 24.05.2024, the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure5 was recorded, wherein she alleged that the applicant Habibur Molla @ Sonu had made arrangements for their accommodation in Surat, Gujarat. The co-accused Rashid Sardar forcibly had physical relations with her as also compelled her to establish physical relations with two other persons for money.

Thereafter, at the instance of co-accused Rashid Sardar, the applicant, Vipul Kumar and Bhole were arrested on 28.05.2024 from Surat, Gujarat. During investigation, the applicant had confessed that he had made arrangement for a room on rent for the co-accused in return of which he 3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’ 4 Hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’ 5 Hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’ BAIL APPLN. 3249/2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:21.01.2026 02:36:37 forcefully had physical relations with the prosecutrix. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed on 11.07.2024 under Section(s) 363/366(A)/370/376/506/120B/34 of the IPC, Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section(s) 3/4 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act. 6. Amongst the various grounds taken in the present bail application, Mr. Deeparghya Datta, learned counsel for the applicant primarily submitted that the applicant was arrested without being informed of the grounds of arrest, either orally or in writing, which amounts to a gross violation of his constitutional right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India6 as well as statutory right under Section 50 CrPC (now Section 47 BNSS). The learned counsel further submitted that requirement of Article 22(1) is not a mere procedural formality but a constitutional safeguard in form of fundamental rights which, irrespective of the statute, is available to every arrestee to defend himself. 7. As such, the learned counsel submitted that since the fundamental right of the applicant has been violated, his arrest and subsequent remand, being illegal, stands vitiated calling for release of the applicant. The learned counsel places reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.7, Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India8, Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi)9, Vihaan