A T N A I N I TA L v. St at e of Ut t arakhand

First Bail Application No. 2274 of 2024, “Abdul Daeem @ Saddam vs. State of Uttarakhand”. Ashish Naithani, J.

4. The girl’s st at em ent under Sect ion 183 BNSS alleges t hat she w as m isled by t he applicant under t he pret ext of m arriage, t aken t o Noida, and subj ect ed t o non- consensual phy sical relat ions. She also referred t o overhearing an ext ort ion- relat ed conver sat ion.

5. A charge sheet was filed on 13.10.2024. The applicant ’s earlier bail plea was rej ect ed by t he learned Addit ional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, on 20.11.2024.

6. I n t he present bail applicat ion, t he applicant has also raised a plea of procedural illegalit y, cont ending t hat no writ t en grounds of arrest wer e furnished at t he t im e of appr ehension. A supplem ent ary affidavit has been filed t o t hat effect , support ed by t he arr est m em o and general diary ent ry dat ed 15.08.2024.

7. Lear ned counsel for t he applicant subm it s t hat t he applicant has been falsely im plicat ed. I t is ur ged t hat t he vict im , being a m aj or, was in a consensual r elat ionship wit h t he applicant and accom panied him volunt arily. The allegat ion of non- consensual physical r elat ions is an aft ert hought , and t her e is no m edical or forensic evidence suggest ing coercion or inj ury .

8. I t is furt her subm it t ed t hat t he charge sheet has already been filed and no cust odial int errogat ion is r equired. The applicant has no crim inal ant ecedent s, is a perm anent resident of Dist rict Haridwar , and undert ak es t o cooperat e wit h t he t rial. I t is argued t hat t her e is no risk of t am per ing wit h evidence or absconding.

9. A specific ground has also been r aised concer ning non- com pliance w it h Sect ion 48( 3) of t he BNSS, 2023. I t is subm it t ed t hat at t he t im e of arrest , t he applicant was not provided wit h t he writ t en grounds of arrest , t her eby violat ing his fundam ent al right under Art icle 22( 1) of t he Const it ut ion. First Bail Application No. 2274 of 2024, “Abdul Daeem @ Saddam vs. State of Uttarakhand”. Ashish Naithani, J.

10. Lear ned St at e Counsel, opposes t he bail applicat ion. I t is subm it t ed t hat t he vict im was recover ed on t he point ing out of t he applicant and t hat her st at em ent s under Sect ions 180 and 183 BNSS clearly im plicat e t he applicant in t he com m ission of gr ave offences. I t is furt her argued t hat t he applicant had concealed his prior m arriage and m isled t he vict im under t he pret ext of m arriage.

11. The St at e cont ends t hat t he nat ur e of allegat ions, including abduct ion and sex ual ex ploit at ion, are serious and t hat grant ing bail at t his st age m ay send a wrong signal. I t is also urged t hat t he procedural ir regularit y alleged by t he applicant does not by it self warrant release, part icularly when t her e is subst ant iv e evidence suppor t ing t he St at e’s case.

12. Hear d learned counsel for t he part ies and per used t he r ecor ds.

13. A significant ground pr esent ed befor e t he Court is of t he alleged violat ion of t he applicant ’s fundam ent al and st at ut ory right t o be inform ed of t he grounds of arr est . The arrest m em o and General Diary Ent ry dat ed 15.08.2024, annexed t o t he supplem ent ary affidavit , do not indicat e t hat any writ t en grounds of arrest wer e furnished t o t he applicant at t he t im e of apprehension.

14. Art icle 22( 1) of t he Const it ut ion m andat es t hat a per son arr est ed m ust be inform ed, as soon as possible, of t he grounds of such arrest . This m andat e is echoed in Sect ion 48( 3) of t he BNSS, 2023, w hich requir es t hat t he arr est ed per son be infor m ed of t he part iculars of t he offence and be provided a writ t en copy w her e t he arrest is r ecor ded in writ ing. This provision is not a form alit y but a const it ut ional safeguar d t o ensur e m eaningful access t o rem edies and represent at ion.

15. I n Vi h a a n K u m a r v . St a t e o f H a r y a n a , 2 0 2 5 I N SC 1 6 2 , t he Hon’ble Suprem e Court clarified t hat m er e oral First Bail Application No. 2274 of 2024, “Abdul Daeem @ Saddam vs. State of Uttarakhand”. Ashish Naithani, J. com m unicat ion or t hird- part y int im at ion does not sat isfy t he requirem ent under Art icle 22( 1) . The Court held t hat failure t o furnish writ t en gr ounds of arrest is a subst ant ive violat ion of fundam ent al right s and not a procedural irr egularit y. I n t hat case, t he Court observed t hat “ t he arrest ing aut horit y m ust produce cont em poraneous docum ent ary evidence dem onst rat ing com pliance, failing which t he arr est is liable t o be declared const it ut ionally infirm .”

16. Likewise, in Ri h a n K u m a r v . St a t e o f H a r y a n a , 2 0 2 5 SCC On Li n e SC 2 6 9 , t he Supr em e Court held t hat wher e no w rit t en grounds are supplied t o t he arrest ee, bail becom es a m at t er of right , unless over whelm ing and except ional r easons are shown t o j ust ify cont inued det ent ion.

17. I n t he pr esent case, t he St at e has not placed on recor d any m at erial t o suggest t hat t he applicant was furnished wit h t he grounds of arrest in writ ing. The arrest m em o is silent . Merely inform ing t he relat ives of t he Accused about t he arrest is not sufficient . I n such circum st ances, and in view of t he const it ut ional pronouncem ent s refer red t o above, t his Court is const rained t o hold t hat t he arrest suffers from a serious legal infir m it y.

18. As r egar ds t he m erit s of t he prosecut ion case, while t he allegat ions are grav e and w arrant full t rial, t he rem ains t hat t he v ict im is a m aj or and adm it t ed t o having prior acquaint ance wit h t he applicant . The char ge sheet has been filed, and no m at erial has been shown t o suggest any likelihood of t am pering wit h evidence or fleeing from j ust ice. The t rial is yet t o com m ence.

19. The Court is conscious t hat t he gr ant of bail does not am ount t o an acquit t al, nor does it preclude t he t rial court from drawing it s own infer ences based on evidence adduced. Howev er , at t his st age, t he const it ut ional lapse in t he m anner of arrest , coupled wit h t he applicant ’s prolonged cust ody and First Bail Application No. 2274 of 2024, “Abdul Daeem @ Saddam vs. State of Uttarakhand”. Ashish Naithani, J. absence of ant ecedent s, t ilt s t he balance in favour of grant ing bail. ORD ER I n view of t he for egoing discussion, t his Court finds it a fit case t o ex ercise it s discret ion in favour of t he applicant . Accordingly, t his bail applicat ion is allowed. Let t he applicant , Abdul Daeem @ Saddam , be released on bail, on his fur nishing a personal bond and t wo reliable suret ies of like am ount , t o t he sat isfact ion of t he court concer ned. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A SH I SH N A I TH A N I , J. Dt : 22.05.2025 SB SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3 a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c , postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C5279 6A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18F E29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA First Bail Application No. 2274 of 2024, “Abdul Daeem @ Saddam vs. State of Uttarakhand”. Ashish Naithani, J.