2025:UHC:4542 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI 22th May, 2025 FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2274 of 2024 Abdul Daeem @ Saddam …Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate. Counsel for the State : Mr. Rakesh Negi, Brief Holder. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. The applicant, Abdul Daeem @ Saddam, seeks bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Case Crime No. 402 of 2024, arising out of Special Sessions Trial No. 115 of 2024, registered at P.S. Kotwali Gangnahar, District Haridwar, under Sections 87, 308(2), 61(2), 142, and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. On 13.08.2024, a missing report was lodged by one Sitaram regarding his 18-year-old daughter, Tannu. On 14.08.2024, her maternal uncle, Amit Rathore, alleged in a complaint that he received a call from Naeem demanding money and disclosing the girl’s location. Consequently, the report was converted into an FIR under Section 87 of BNS. 3. The applicant was arrested on 15.08.2024 at 01:39 AM from Manglaur Bus Station. Co-accused Naeem was arrested shortly after and disclosed that the girl was confined in a flat at Noida. On their pointing out, the police recovered the girl at 07:10 AM the same day. First Bail Application No. 2274 of 2024, “Abdul Daeem @ Saddam vs. State of Uttarakhand”. Ashish Naithani, J. 2025:UHC:4542 4. The girl’s statement under Section 183 BNSS alleges that she was misled by the applicant under the pretext of marriage, taken to Noida, and subjected to non-consensual physical relations. She also referred to overhearing an extortion-related conversation. 5. A charge sheet was filed on 13.10.2024. The applicant’s earlier bail plea was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, on 20.11.2024. 6. In the present bail application, the applicant has also raised a plea of procedural illegality, contending that no written grounds of arrest were furnished at the time of apprehension. A supplementary affidavit has been filed to that effect, supported by the arrest memo and general diary entry dated 15.08.2024. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated. It is urged that the victim, being a major, was in a consensual relationship with the applicant and accompanied him voluntarily. The allegation of non-consensual physical relations is an afterthought, and there is no medical or forensic evidence suggesting coercion or injury. 8. It is further submitted that the charge sheet has already been filed and no custodial interrogation is required. The applicant has no criminal antecedents, is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, and undertakes to cooperate with the trial. It is argued that there is no risk of tampering with evidence or absconding. 9. A specific ground has also been raised concerning non-compliance with Section 48(3) of the BNSS, 2023. It is submitted that at the time of arrest, the applicant was not provided with the written grounds of arrest, thereby violating his fundamental right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. First Bail Application No. 2274 of 2024, “Abdul Daeem @ Saddam vs. State of Uttarakhand”. Ashish Naithani, J. 2025:UHC:4542 10. Learned State Counsel, opposes the bail application. It is submitted that the victim was recovered on the pointing out of the applicant and that her statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS clearly implicate the applicant in the commission of grave offences. It is further argued that the applicant had concealed his prior marriage and misled the victim under the pretext of marriage. 11. The State contends that the nature of allegations, including abduction and sexual exploitation, are serious and that granting bail at this stage may send a wrong signal. It is also urged that the procedural irregularity alleged by the applicant does not by itself warrant release, particularly when there is substantive evidence supporting the State’s case. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 13. A significant ground presented before the Court is of the alleged violation of the applicant’s fundamental and statutory right to be informed of the grounds of arrest. The arrest memo and General Diary Entry dated 15.08.2024, annexed to the supplementary affidavit, do not indicate that any written grounds of arrest were furnished to the applicant at the time of apprehension. 14. Article 22(1) of the Constitution mandates that a person arrested must be informed, as soon as possible, of the grounds of such arrest. This mandate is echoed in Section 48(3) of the BNSS, 2023, which requires that the arrested person be informed of the particulars of the offence and be provided a written copy where the arrest is recorded in writing. This provision is not a formality but a constitutional safeguard to ensure meaningful access to legal remedies and representation. 15. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 INSC 162, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that mere oral First Bail Application No. 2274 of 2024, “Abdul Daeem @ Saddam vs. State of Uttarakhand”. Ashish Naithani, J. 2025:UHC:4542 communication or third-party intimation does not satisfy the requirement under Article 22(1). The Court held that failure to furnish written grounds of arrest is a substantive violation of fundamental rights and not a procedural irregularity. In that case, the Court observed that “the arresting authority must produce contemporaneous documentary evidence demonstrating compliance, failing which the arrest is liable to be declared constitutionally infirm.” 16. Likewise, in Rihan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269, the Supreme Court held that where no written grounds are supplied to the arrestee, bail becomes a matter of right, unless overwhelming and exceptional reasons are shown to justify continued detention. 17. In the present case, the State has not placed on record any material to suggest that the applicant was furnished with the grounds of arrest in writing. The arrest memo is silent. Merely informing the relatives of the Accused about the arrest is not sufficient. In such circumstances, and in view of the constitutional pronouncements referred to above, this Court is constrained to hold that the arrest suffers from a serious legal infirmity. 18. As regards the merits of the prosecution case, while the allegations are grave and warrant full trial, the fact remains that the victim is a major and admitted to having prior acquaintance with the applicant. The charge sheet has been filed, and no material has been shown to suggest any likelihood of tampering with evidence or fleeing from justice. The trial is yet to commence. 19. The Court is conscious that the grant of bail does not amount to an acquittal, nor does it preclude the trial court from drawing its own inferences based on evidence adduced. However, at this stage, the constitutional lapse in the manner of arrest, coupled with the applicant’s prolonged custody and First Bail Application No. 2274 of 2024, “Abdul Daeem @ Saddam vs. State of Uttarakhand”. Ashish Naithani, J. 2025:UHC:4542 absence of antecedents, tilts the balance in favour of granting bail. ORDER In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds it a fit case to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed. Let the applicant, Abdul Daeem @ Saddam, be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. ___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt: 22.05.2025 SB First Bail Application No. 2274 of 2024, “Abdul Daeem @ Saddam vs. State of Uttarakhand”. Ashish Naithani, J. SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by 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 Date: 2025.06.05 13:31:07 +05'30'