Bombay High Court Quashes Arrest for Breach of 24-Hour Rule and Failure to Inform Nominated Person

Background of the Case

In Hemang Jadavji Shah v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition No. 2989 of 2025, the Bombay High Court was called upon to decide the legality of the arrest and subsequent detention of the petitioner, Hemang Jadavji Shah, a businessman embroiled in a family dispute that escalated into criminal allegations. The case revolved around an FIR registered late at night based on a complaint by the petitioner's brother, involving alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued to prevent the petitioner from leaving India.

Sequence of Events

·       14 May 2025: FIR registered post-midnight at Malabar Hill Police Station.

·       Same day: LOC issued to prevent petitioner from leaving the country.

·       17 May 2025, 17:30 hrs: Petitioner detained by immigration authorities at Delhi Airport while attempting to travel abroad.

·       18 May 2025, 04:30 hrs: Custody handed over to Economic Offences Wing (EOW) officers.

·       18 May 2025, 22:45 hrs: Petitioner produced before the Magistrate in Mumbai, more than 24 hours after initial detention.

Key Legal Arguments

Petitioner's Counsel:

·       The arrest was illegal as the petitioner was not produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours of being detained, violating Section 58 of the BNSS and Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India.

·       The grounds of arrest were not supplied to a relative or nominated person as mandated by Section 48 of the BNSS.

·       The entire episode was a civil dispute between family members being given a criminal colour to exert pressure during mediation.

State's Response:

·       Argued that the 24-hour period should be calculated from when the EOW formally took custody, not from the immigration detention.

·       Claimed that the petitioner's father was informed of the grounds of arrest, and all procedures were followed.

Court’s Analysis and Findings

Calculation of 24-Hour Period:

·       The Court held that the act of the immigration authorities detaining the petitioner at the request of the police, pursuant to the LOC, amounted to arrest for the purposes of Article 22(2) and Section 58 of BNSS.

·       The 24-hour period began at 17:30 hrs on 17 May 2025, when the petitioner was first detained, not when the EOW formally recorded the arrest.

Violation of Statutory and Constitutional Rights:

·       The petitioner was produced before the Magistrate at 22:45 hrs on 18 May 2025, exceeding the 24-hour limit.

·       The authorities failed to comply with Section 48 of BNSS, as the grounds of arrest were not supplied to a person nominated by the petitioner. Supplying the grounds to the petitioner's father, who was also the complainant, did not satisfy the statutory requirement.

On the Nature of the Dispute:

·       The Court noted that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, arising from a family settlement, and questioned the urgency and manner in which criminal proceedings were initiated.

Legal Precedents Cited

The Court relied on several Supreme Court and High Court decisions, including:

·       Kaushik Rameshchandra Thakkar v. State of Maharashtra

·       Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma

·       Hem Prabhakar Shah v. State of Maharashtra

·       Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana

·       Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P.

These cases reaffirmed the mandatory nature of producing an arrested person before a Magistrate within 24 hours and the importance of procedural safeguards during arrest.

Operative Order

·       The Court declared the arrest of the petitioner as illegal and unnecessary.

·       Ordered the immediate release of the petitioner.

·       Directed that its findings were restricted to the issue of illegal arrest and would not affect the merits of the criminal case or the trial.

·       Preserved CCTV footage and records for potential further proceedings regarding the conduct of the officers.

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces the fundamental rights of individuals against arbitrary arrest and detention, emphasizing strict compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards. The Court made it clear that:

·       Any detention, even by immigration authorities at the behest of the police, triggers the 24-hour rule.

·       Failure to inform a nominated person of the grounds of arrest vitiates the arrest.

·       Civil disputes should not be converted into criminal proceedings to exert undue pressure.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s decision is a strong affirmation of personal liberty and due process, reiterating that procedural safeguards are not mere technicalities but essential bulwarks against abuse of power by law enforcement agencies.

Print Page