Arrest and remand procedures deemed illegal; Bail granted to Habibur Molla @ Sonu in high-profile case.
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has granted bail to Habibur Molla @ Sonu, highlighting the violation of fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Justice Saurabh Banerjee presided over the proceedings, addressing the bail application of Molla, who was implicated in a case involving serious charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
The case originated from an FIR filed at Police Station Kapashera, Delhi, where Molla was accused of providing accommodation to co-accused involved in the alleged abduction and exploitation of a minor. The arrest of Molla was contested on the grounds that he was not informed of the reasons for his arrest at the time, as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which requires that an arrestee be informed of the grounds of arrest.
The court's judgment underscored the sacrosanct nature of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, emphasizing that any infraction of the fundamental protection provided by Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest and subsequent remand. In this case, the investigating officers failed to provide the grounds of arrest to Molla at the time of his detention, rendering the process ineffective and illegal.
Justice Banerjee cited previous Supreme Court rulings, including those in *Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)* and *Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra*, which reinforced the necessity of informing arrestees of the grounds for their arrest to enable them to secure legal assistance, oppose police remand, and seek bail.
Despite serious allegations against Molla, including charges under Sections 363, 366(A), 370, 376, 506, 120B, and 34 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the court found that the procedural violations were sufficient grounds to grant bail. The bail conditions imposed by the court include furnishing a personal bond, surrendering the passport, non-tampering with evidence, and reporting monthly to the Investigating Officer.
The judgment has brought attention to the importance of adhering to constitutional mandates during arrest procedures, ensuring that individuals are not deprived of their fundamental rights unlawfully. This case serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in safeguarding individual rights against procedural lapses.
Bottom Line:
Fundamental Rights - Violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which mandates that an arrestee be informed of the grounds of arrest, vitiates the arrest and subsequent remand, thereby warranting release on bail.
Statutory provision(s): Article 21, Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 363, 366(A), 370, 376, 506, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Sections 3/4 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act.
Habibur Molla @ Sonu v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2842081
