Recently, the Bombay High Court was drawn into a troubling example of how arrest powers continue to be exercised in a casual, almost mechanical fashion despite decades of constitutional jurisprudence warning against it. What began as an investigation into deepfake stock-market advertisements quickly shifted focus from digital deception to a deeper and more fundamental question: Can the State lawfully deprive a citizen of his liberty without demonstrating strict adherence to statutory safeguards? The Court found itself examining not merely the alleged cyber-offence, but the integrity of the arrest process itself, and the larger implications this has for personal liberty in India’s criminal justice system.
Brief Facts:
The dispute arose when a well-known stock analyst complained that fake videos using his likeness were circulating online, misleading viewers into making financial investments. The Cyber Police initiated an investigation and arrested three employees of Valueleaf Services, where the Petitioner worked as Senior Vice President. The Petitioner was not named in the complaint, had not been summoned earlier, and had no prior notice from the police. Yet, on the evening , officers appeared at his residence, interrogated him until late night, and took his mobile phone and laptop without preparing a seizure memo. Shortly after midnight, the police formally recorded his arrest. He was presented before the Magistrate the next morning, where police sought custody on the basis of a pre-filled checklist of reasons. The Magistrate granted police custody and later sent him to judicial custody. His bail plea was rejected. The petitioner then approached the High Court through a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that the very act of arrest was unconstitutional and unlawful.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel for the Petitioner argued that his arrest violated both statutory protections under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(BNSS) and constitutional guarantees under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. For an offence punishable up to seven years, the police may arrest only after recording specific, case-based reasons showing why arrest is necessary. Here, no such individualized reasoning existed. No notice of appearance was issued, even though the law requires it in cases where arrest is not immediately required. He contended that the “grounds of arrest” served to him were vague, templated, and not personal to him, thereby defeating the very purpose of Article 22 of the Constitution protections. He further argued that the Magistrate mechanically authorized the remand without independently examining whether the arrest complied with the safeguards mandated in Arnesh Kumar, Satender Antil, and Vihaan Kumar.
Contentions of the State:
The State maintained that digital communication records, including emails and chats, suggested that the petitioner facilitated access for foreign clients and was involved in disseminating deepfake-based advertisements. According to the State, he had also deleted certain WhatsApp messages, creating an apprehension that evidence could be destroyed. The cousnel argued that due to the cross-border nature of the alleged scheme, custodial interrogation was necessary. The State further insisted that since the Magistrate had already remanded the petitioner to custody, the arrest should not be questioned at this stage.
Observation of the Court:
The Court began by reaffirming that arrest is not a mechanical exercise but a constitutionally sensitive act that must strictly comply with statutory safeguards. It stressed that police cannot simply lift language from the statute and use it as a justification for arrest. The Court quoted the Supreme Court’s warning in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & ANR. that police must avoid “the practice of mechanically reproducing in the case diary all or most of the reasons contained in Section 41 CrPC for effecting arrest,” noting that such conduct “is nothing but subversion of law.”
The Bench emphasised that in offences punishable up to seven years, the police must demonstrate a specific necessity for arrest, supported by real facts, not generic assumptions. The judgment states plainly: “Arrest is an individualized act and the decision to arrest cannot be based on the fact that multiple persons are named together… Furnishing common or identical reasons for all accused… cannot be countenanced as the reasons for arrest cannot be copied, repeated mechanically or stated in collective terms.” This, the Court held, was the precise defect in the Petitioner’s case: the checklist submitted to the Magistrate merely reproduced template reasons rather than individualized grounds.
Turning to the judicial role, the Court invoked Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI to emphasize that Magistrates are not passive signatories to remand requests but active constitutional protectors of liberty. Referring to the Supreme Court’s direction, the High Court reiterated that the Magistrate “shall be satisfied that the condition precedent for arrest… are being satisfied and it is only thereafter that he will authorize the detention of an accused.” Yet, the Magistrate in this case accepted the police’s checklist without independent scrutiny. The High Court warned that “the Magistrate cannot accept common remand note and must insist on distinct reasons for arrest qua each accused and scrutinize them separately,” highlighting that judicial oversight had been reduced to a formality.
Finally, the Court invoked foundational jurisprudence on personal liberty, including the principles from Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., which underscores that arrest must be justified not merely possible. In a decisive concluding remark, the Bench stated: “Denial of liberty of a person is a serious matter and in absence of any reasonable justification… when a person is arrested in flagrant violation of the Constitutional mandate and the statutory protection granted to him, we are left with no other option than to declare the arrest as illegal.”
The decision of the Court:
The Court concluded that the Petitioner’s arrest was illegal, as it was carried out in blatant violation of constitutional protections and the mandatory requirements of the BNSS. Since the arrest was unlawful, his continued detention could not stand. The Court ordered that he be released forthwith on a personal bond, subject to conditions imposed by the Magistrate.
Case Title: Chandrashekhar Bhimsen Naik vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 5764 OF 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Shyam C. Chandak and Hon’ble Ms Justice Bharati Dangre
Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. Kushal Mor, Adv. Tanmay Karmarkar,Adv. Vaibhav Hari, Adv. Rishab Khot, Adv. Ashish Prasad, Adv. Anubha Rastogi and Adv. Aditya Joshi
Counsel for the State: APP Supriya Kak
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
