Bombay HC: How the magistrate or Session judge should protect interest of victim if arrest of accused is declared illegal ?

 There is another important aspect in this matter. The offence is quite serious and therefore, it would not be proper if the victim suffers because of the lapse on the part of the investigating agency. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kavita Manikikar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. in Writ Petition No.1142 of 2018 vide the Order dated 10th May, 2018 had held the arrest of the Petitioner in that Petition as illegal but had further observed that the investigating agency was not precluded to arrest the Petitioner if the investigation so warranted, by following the due procedure of law. The relevant portion in paragraph 17 of the said Judgment is as follows:-

"17. In result, of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is

allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and it is held that the

arrest of the Petitioner is illegal and contrary to the provisions

of Section 46(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However,

the CBI is not precluded to arrest the petitioner if investigation

warrants so, by following the due procedure of law."

11) Therefore, to strike a balance, liberty needs to be given to the

investigating agency to re-arrest the detenu if they deem fit.

{Para 10}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4539 OF 2025

Dhanshala Prakash Vishwakarma  Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. 

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &

SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.

DATED : 7th OCTOBER, 2025.

Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:43397-DB

Print Page

Bombay High Court Declares Arrest Illegal For Failure To Produce Accused Within 24 Hours

The Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Division Bench) held that arrest begins when liberty is restrained, not when formally recorded. Since the Petitioner was not produced within 24 hours of being taken into custody, the arrest was declared illegal and violative of constitutional safeguards.The 'arrest" is complete when such restraint by an authority commences. The arrest commences with the restraint placed on the liberty of the person and not with the time of "arrest" recorded by the Arresting Officer.

31. In the case in hands, the journey of the Petitioner, in custody of the Police, from Palanpur to Ahmedabad to Mumbai, was followed with the Police team taking him to the office of the EOW where he was detained and shown to be arrested at 2.20 PM. There is no explanation as regards the transportation of the Petitioner, after medical examination, for an overnight stay in the lock-up, only to be produced in the Court of the Magistrate, at 1.15 PM, on 17.08.2024. In the light of the above facts, the violation of Article 22(2) is writ large. Section 58 does not contemplate the exclusion of the time required for such a journey, interjected with several events, while computing the time of 24 hrs.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 54 of 2025

Decided On: 27.06.2025

Hanumant Jagganath Nazirkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain, JJ.

Author: Jitendra Jain, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/3610/2025.

Print Page

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

Print Page

Whether supplying ground of arrest to father of petitioner who had filed complaint against petitioner and was not nominated person is sufficient compliance of S 48 of BNSS?

We have perused the reports placed on record to examine the second ground, which was argued regarding the grounds of arrest not supplied as required under section 48 of BNSS. The material on record only indicates that the grounds of arrest were supplied to the petitioner. The contention raised on behalf of the investigating agency that the grounds of arrest were intimated to the petitioner's father and his lawyer is rather surprising and shocking, as there is no dispute that even the petitioner's father has filed a complaint against the present petitioner. Thus, we see no reasonable ground to support such an argument that the ground of arrest supplied to the petitioner's father would amount to sufficient compliance under section 48 of the BNSS, particularly when the petitioner's father has filed a complaint against the petitioner. No material produced on record indicates that the petitioner had ever nominated or disclosed his father's or his lawyer's name for supplying the grounds of arrest as contemplated under section 48 of the BNSS. Therefore, we find substance in the second ground raised on behalf of the petitioner that the grounds of arrest were not supplied as contemplated under section 48 of the BNSS. {Para 26}

 In the High Court of Bombay

Writ Petition No. 2989 of 2025

Hemang Jadavji Shah Vs State of Maharashtra 

(Before Gauri Godse and Somasekhar Sundaresan, JJ.)

Decided on May 30, 2025

Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2145, 2025:BHC-AS:22305-DB

Print Page