Failure To Inform Grounds Of Arrest To Accused Vitiates Arrest & Remand: Delhi High Court Grants Bail In POCSO Case

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to an accused in a POCSO case, holding that failure to inform the grounds of arrest to the accused vitiates the arrest as well as the subsequent remand proceedings.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that the right of an arrestee to be informed of the grounds of arrest is a fundamental right flowing from Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution, and any violation of this safeguard renders the arrest illegal.

“rticle 21 of the Constitution mandates that no person shall be deprived of his/ her personal liberty, except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Inextricably flowing therefrom, Article 22(1) of the Constitution mandates that an arrestee be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds of arrest to enable him/ her to effectively defend himself/ herself by securing legal assistance, opposing police remand, seeking bail, etc. and any infraction/ encroachment upon this fundamental protection has been consistently and sternly deprecated,” the bench observed.

The case arose from an FIR registered under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, wherein the applicant was accused of facilitating accommodation for co-accused persons who allegedly exploited a minor.

Applicant argued that he was neither informed of the grounds of arrest at the time of arrest nor supplied the same thereafter, in violation of his constitutional and statutory rights. It was contended that such non-compliance vitiated the entire process, entitling him to bail.

State on the other hand opposed the plea, contending that the allegations were serious in nature and that mere absence of written grounds of arrest would not automatically render the arrest illegal.

The High Court, however, noted that once such an allegation/ contention is raised by the arrestee, then the burden shifts upon the investigating officer/ agency to establish the due compliance thereof.

“In the present case, since the learned APP for the State fairly admitted that the grounds of arrest were not given to the applicant at the time of arrest or subsequently, rather were furnished at a much later stage, the whole process is rendered ineffective and will serve no purpose,” the Court said and granted bail.

Appearance: Mr. Deeparghya Datta, Mr. Prem Nath Upadhyay and Mr. Akshay Chandra, Advs. for Applicant; Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State with Ms. Vanshika Singh and Ms. Divya Bakshi, Advocates and SI Aarti Yadav, SI Amisha, Main IO and SI Kamal Kant (Arresting Officer), PS.: Kapashera.

Case title: Habibur Molla @ Sonu v. State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr.

Case no.: BAIL APPLN. 3249/2025

Click here to read order