CHANDRASHEKHAR BHIMSEN NAIK v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Illegal Arrest - High Court Quashes Arrest Due to Non-Compliance with BNSS Section 35 and Article 22; Mandates Individualized Arrest Reasons.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:53286-DB
Decision Date: 03-12-2025
List of Laws
The Constitution of India; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Information Technology Act, 2000; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
- Facts: A FIR was registered against the petitioner for offences under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000, based on a complaint that deepfake videos of the complainant were being circulated on social media. The petitioner, employed as Senior Vice President at Valueleaf Services, was arrested. The petitioner alleges that the arrest was illegal due to non-compliance with procedural safeguards under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and Article 22 of the Constitution of India.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the legality of his arrest and detention. The Magistrate had rejected the petitioner's bail application.
- Issue: Was the arrest of the petitioner illegal due to non-compliance with the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and Article 22 of the Constitution of India, specifically regarding the recording of reasons for arrest and communication of grounds of arrest? Did the Magistrate properly assess the necessity and legality of the arrest before authorizing detention?
- Holding: Yes, the arrest of the petitioner was declared illegal. The Court ordered the petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or more sureties.
- Reasoning: The Court found that the police officer failed to record individualized reasons for the petitioner's arrest, instead using template reasons that did not specifically relate to the petitioner's role or necessity for arrest. The Court emphasized that Section 35 of the BNSS requires the police officer to record reasons in writing for making an arrest, especially when the offence is punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. The Magistrate also failed to properly scrutinize the reasons for arrest and mechanically authorized detention. The Court relied on precedents such as Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, which mandate strict compliance with procedural safeguards during arrest to protect personal liberty and prevent arbitrary arrests. The Court held that the arrest violated the petitioner's constitutional rights under Article 22 and the statutory protections under the BNSS.
🔒 For Members Only