Procedural Non-Compliance in Communicating Grounds of Arrest Justifies Grant of Second Bail Application.

The applicant, Ankit, filed a second bail application seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 143 of 2024, registered at Police Station SIDCUL, Haridwar.

The prosecution alleged that on March 21, 2024, the applicant kidnapped the complainant's 13-year-old daughter.

Charges were framed under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), and 376(3) of the IPC, alongside Sections 3(A)/4(ii) and 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act.

The applicant's first bail application was rejected on merits on April 30, 2025.

The applicant has been in judicial custody since April 3, 2024.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail on a second application based on procedural illegalities in the arrest process and the duration of incarceration.

2. Whether the failure to record and communicate grounds of arrest in writing vitiates the legality of the detention for the purpose of bail.

The Court applied the principles governing the grant of regular bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC/BNSS) and the specific penal provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the POCSO Act.

The Court relied on the constitutional and statutory mandate—stemming from Article 22(1) of the Constitution and settled legal principles—requiring that grounds of arrest must be recorded in the arrest memo and communicated to the accused in writing.

The Court also considered the factor of "period of incarceration" and "unexplained delay in lodging the FIR" as grounds for discretionary relief.

The Court noted that while this was a second bail application, a significant procedural lapse had occurred. Upon perusing the arrest memo produced by the State, the Court observed that the grounds for arrest were neither clearly recorded nor communicated to the applicant in writing.

This violation of settled legal principles regarding arrest procedures served as a primary ground for bail.

The Court evaluated the factual matrix, noting a 32-day delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of independent witness statements.

The Court balanced the applicant’s age (21 years) and his continuous incarceration since April 2024 against the likelihood of a prolonged trial, concluding that the procedural lapses and the duration of custody outweighed the previous rejection on merits.

The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The Court clarified that this order did not express an opinion on the final merits of the case.