IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.2529 of 2024 Kulveer @ Veer ..... Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the applicant.

Mr. Vipul Painuli, learned AGA and Ms. Rangoli Purohit, learned Brief Holder for the State.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed on behalf of the applicant, Kulveer @ Veer, seeking regular bail in connection with Case Crime No. 499 of 2024, registered at Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar, under Sections 363 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 16 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

2. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 31.05.2024.

This is the first bail application moved before this Court.

3. The case in the present matter is that the complainant’s minor daughter, aged 17 years, was enticed away at night by one Aash Mohammad and taken to Landhora, Mangalore, where she was allegedly sexually assaulted by Aash Mohammad and another older man. It is noteworthy that the name of the present applicant is not mentioned in the FIR. The narrative is focused on the actions of the co-accused.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no direct allegation of sexual assault against the applicant. The initial statement of the victim does not even name him. There has also been no recovery from or at the instance of the applicant, nor has any Test Identification Parade (TIP) been conducted to establish his identity conclusively. The State has failed to produce any independent witness who can affirm the presence or involvement of the applicant in the alleged incident.

5. A crucial point pressed during the hearing was that the arrest of the applicant is vitiated on account of non-compliance with constitutional safeguards. The arrest memo does not disclose any grounds of arrest. Despite this procedural defect being flagged at the trial stage, the State has not produced any material before this Court to demonstrate that the grounds of arrest were ever communicated to the applicant.

6. This omission amounts to a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which mandates that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds of such arrest.

7. In response, learned State Counsel opposed the bail application on several grounds. It was argued that the offences alleged are of a grave and heinous nature, involving the abduction and sexual exploitation of a minor girl. The age of the victim has been duly established through school records, which indicate that she was born on 05.04.2007 and was therefore below 18 years of age on the date of the incident.

8. The State further contended that the name of the present applicant has come out in the subsequent statement of the victim, and her testimony is consistent in attributing a facilitating role to him in taking her to the place of occurrence along with the co-accused. The charge sheet has been submitted after due investigation, and prima facie, a case is made out against the applicant.

9. Learned State Counsel further submitted that in cases of sexual assault involving minors, the presence of independent witnesses is often unlikely. The testimony of the child victim, if found credible, may be sufficient to sustain a conviction. The FIR was lodged without delay upon the victim narrating the incident to her father, and the victim’s subsequent statements have corroborated the sequence of events.

10. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, including the case diary, arrest memo, medical records, and statements recorded under the BNSS.

11. The arrest memo is devoid of any grounds, and the State has failed to demonstrate compliance with Article 22(1), so the Court finds the arrest constitutionally infirm. S