Delhi High Court Frees POCSO Accused: Arrest Invalid Without Grounds Disclosure

In a striking affirmation of constitutional protections, the Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to Habibur Molla @ Sonu in a grave POCSO case, ruling that police failure to inform him of arrest grounds at the time of apprehension violated his fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution . Justice Saurabh Banerjee emphasized that such lapses render the entire arrest and remand process illegal, even amid serious allegations of child trafficking and sexual exploitation.

From Delhi Streets to Surat Shadows

The saga began on May 10, 2024 , when a mother reported her minor daughter missing from their Kapashera home in Delhi. FIR No. 242/2024 was swiftly registered at Police Station Kapashera under Sections 363, 366(A), 370, 376, 506, 120B, and 34 IPC , Section 6 POCSO Act , and Sections 3/4 Immoral Traffic Prevention Act .

Investigation revealed co-accused Rashid Sardar and Rimpa Sardar had lured the girl to Surat via Mumbai, holding her captive. She was rescued there alongside them. The prosecutrix 's statement under Section 164 CrPC implicated Molla, Rashid's cousin, in arranging their rental accommodation. Police alleged Molla confessed to forcing physical relations with the girl in exchange. A chargesheet followed on July 11, 2024 , after Molla's arrest on May 28 alongside others.

Molla, through counsel Deeparghya Datta , Prem Nath Upadhyay , and Akshay Chandra , contested his role, claiming he innocently aided family without knowledge of crimes and highlighting the girl's testimony denying his direct exploitation.

Defense Strikes at Procedural Heart, Prosecution Defends Crime's Weight

Molla's bail plea hinged on a core procedural breach: no oral or written disclosure of arrest grounds, breaching Article 22(1) and Section 50 CrPC (now Section 47 BNSS ) . Counsel argued this fundamental safeguard—essential for securing counsel, opposing remand, or seeking bail—vitiated the arrest entirely, citing Supreme Court precedents like Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) , Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India , Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana , Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra , and Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma .

They also claimed false implication, noting the prosecutrix 's cross-examination : she denied Molla forcing her into relations with others, stating he respected her refusal.

State counsel Meenakshi Dahiya , assisted by Vanshika Singh , Divya Bakshi , and investigating officers, countered fiercely. Pointing to the girl's identification of Molla in court— "Isne bhi mere sath jabardasti sex kiya tha" (He also forced sex with me)—they stressed the offenses' gravity under Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh . Mere lack of written grounds doesn't auto-invalidate arrest absent prejudice, per State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan , they argued. Mihir applies prospectively, they added.

Judiciary's Razor-Sharp Focus: Rights Over Retribution?

Justice Banerjee dissected the clash between liberty's sanctity and crime's severity. Recalling Article 21 's mandate—no deprivation sans due process —and Article 22(1) 's " as soon as may be " grounds disclosure, the court invoked Supreme Court wisdom.

In Prabir Purkayastha , it was held: “The right to be informed about the grounds of arrest flows from Article 22(1) ... any infringement... would vitiate the process of arrest and remand.” Vihaan Kumar and Mihir reinforced this, shifting burden to police upon allegation.

Crucially, the State conceded no timely grounds were provided—furnished far later. "The whole process is rendered ineffective," ruled the court, deeming arrest and remand vitiated without needing merits analysis.

Key Observations from the Bench

“ 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... any infraction/encroachment upon this fundamental protection has been consistently and sternly deprecated.”

“Resultantly... any person arrested... has a fundamental... right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a copy... have to be furnished... at the earliest.”

“In the present case, since the learned APP... fairly admitted that the grounds of arrest were not given... the whole process is rendered ineffective and will serve no purpose.”

Bail with Strings: Liberty Restored, But Watched Closely

Molla walks free on ₹50,000 personal bond plus surety, bound by strict conditions: no leaving Delhi sans permission, passport surrender, monthly reporting, witness non-contact, and constant mobile tracking.

This January 21, 2026 , order (Bail Appln. 3249/2025) underscores: procedural due process is non-negotiable, even in POCSO horrors. As echoed in media summaries, it signals police must prioritize constitutional compliance, potentially spurring reforms and defenses in trafficking probes. Observations bind only this bail, not trial merits.