Arrest Is Individualized Act; Decision To Arrest Can’t Be Based On Fact That Multiple Persons Are Named Together: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court held that Arrest is an individualized act and the decision to arrest cannot be based on the fact that multiple persons are named together.

The Court held thus in a Writ Petition filed by an accused against the rejection of his Bail Application by the Magistrate.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Shyam C. Chandak observed, “Arrest is an individualized act and the decision to arrest cannot be based on the fact that multiple persons are named together as arrest must be justified separately for each accused. Since each of the accused is arrested separately, the Investigating Officer must form independent satisfaction qua each of the accused and it is imperative for him to examine specific role of each accused, and the need for arresting him. Furnishing common or identical reasons for all accused as is sought to be attempted to be done in the checklist furnished to the Magistrate cannot be countenanced as the reasons for arrest cannot be copied, repeated mechanically or stated in collective terms as each accused require a distinct reason since the act of arrest of each accused is distinct.”

The Bench said that the necessity of arrest must be established accused-wise as Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) permits the Police Officer to arrest without warrant on the basis of his belief or suspicion that the person has committed offence and the satisfaction contemplated under Section 35(1)(b) (ii), (a) to (e) has to be accused specific.

Advocate Kushal Mor appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, while APP Supriya Kak appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Brief Facts

An FIR was registered with Cyber Police Station West Region, Mumbai on the Complaint filed by a SEBI registered Research Analyst, working as Stock Market Expert. He made a grievance about he being informed by his friends and relatives that since June 2025 his fake videos (deepfake) of an advertisement about investment in the stock market is going viral on social media and that many people had invested in the stock market after viewing the advertisement. Upon such information being brought to his knowledge, he went to the Facebook Ad Library and on search was shocked to find videos on Ad Library ID and noticed that it was a deepfake app. His complaint resulted in registration of an FIR under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), and 356(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 66 C and 66 D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act).

The Petitioner-accused was employed as Senior Vice President (Business Development) at a company which was engaged in the business of digital technology and providing digital growth solutions. In October 2025, the Respondent visited the company’s Bengaluru office and as per the Petitioner, its employees were interrogated and three employees of the company were arrested in connection with the subject FIR. The Petitioner did not receive any summons nor was he called for any interrogation, but after some days, the officers of Cyber Police Station visited his residence allegedly without serving any prior notice/intimation, as required under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. Thereafter, he was arrested and he filed a Bail Application before the Magistrate, which was rejected. Being aggrieved, he approached the High Court.

Court’s Observations

The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “In a case like the present one when there are multiple accused, it ought to have been ensured that the reasons of arrest could be discerned qua each of the accused individually by setting out them in specific and distinctly.”

The Court emphasised that the Investigating Officer must show why arrest is necessary for each accused individually, considering his flight risk, potential of his tampering with evidence and of influencing witnesses and the need for his custodial interrogation. It clarified that all these parameters cannot be common to each of the accused and they must be individualistic.

“In any case arrest cannot be justified based on collective conduct even if the offence is jointly committed, as the grounds/ reasons of arrest cannot be common as the law require reasons linked to the individual and not to the group. … Arrest being an individual act, therefore, the grounds of arrest as well as reasons of arrest, must reflect the personal role attributed and personal necessity for effecting such arrest and the Investigating Officer is expected to record how an act of particular accused contribute to the offence and why he/she shall not be left out and why the custody is necessary”, it added.

The Court remarked that group-based reasoning clearly reflects non-application of mind as when the Investigating Officer use template reasons, formulating general grounds, for all it legally amounts to a mechanical arrest which cannot be sustained.

“An arrest would become illegal if individual grounds qua each accused are missing and if the reasons do not specifically explain why a particular accused is arrested, the arrest shall be violative of the statutory requirement and the safeguard”, it enunciated.

The Court observed that since the accused arrested without warrant by police enjoy the Constitutional right under Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), to be produced before the Magistrate without unnecessary delay and in no circumstances beyond 24 hours excluding the time of journey, the power of the Magistrate to authorize detention is considered to be a solemn function, as it affects the liberty and freedom of an individual and is expected to be exercised with great care and caution.

“Before the Magistrate authorizes a detention of an accused in any form, he has to satisfy himself, that the arrest made is legal and in accordance with the Constitutional and statutory safeguards and the Magistrate before authorizing the detention shall record his own satisfaction, may be in brief but it must be reflected from his Order”, it further noted.

The Court also said that a Magistrate who is expected to look into the reasons, which are recorded by the police officer while effecting arrest based on his individual satisfaction that the arrest is necessary on any of the parameter set out in Section 35 (i)(b)(ii) (a) to (c), the Magistrate is duty bound to review those reasons, when a person is produced for remand and he shall not mechanically approve the police request for detention but apply his mind and only on being satisfied that the reasons recorded by the police officer are sufficient enough to detain the accused, grant the custody.

“Merely because there is a power to arrest do not justify its exercise unless it is in conformity with the provisions in the statute which are enacted with a view to prevent the arbitrary exercise of such power and therefore when the Code or Sanhita has incorporated necessary safeguards, which are directed at striking a balance, when a person is arrested merely on the basis of suspicion of his involvement in an offence. The reasons for arrest necessarily must be individual specific as on arrest, it is the liberty of the individual which is impaired and when an individual is arrested, the reasons for his arrest must solely relate to him and shall be specific to him and are not to be recorded in a collective fashion”, it elucidated.

Conclusion

Moreover, the Court observed that the safeguard enshrined in the Constitution as well as the Procedural law are aimed at preventing potential coercive practices by the police machinery and to safeguard the individual liberty and to ensure that the detention of an accused during investigation is permitted only in accordance with the procedure prescribed.

“When the Code of Criminal Procedure/Sanhita, direct strict compliance with provisions as regards arrest, which is interpreted and given its full play by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar, by making it imperative that the officer must fill the checklist and furnish the reasons and material which necessitated the arrest and when it is forwarded to the Magistrate, he must scrutinize the reasons before authorizing the detention. Mechanically reproducing in the case diary all or most of the conditions contained in Section 41 of Cr.PC is nothing but subversion of law and the Constitutional Courts time and again have strongly deprecated this practice”, it said.

The Court remarked that the tendency to merely copy the template provided in the statute without specifying as to how the stipulation contemplated is attracted, which is normally a copy paste affair and specially when multiple accused are shown the same formula grounds and in the present case, the grounds/the reasons recorded for arresting the four accused are more or less identical.

“In our considered view the arrest of the petitioner is illegal as it was the duty of the Respondent to ensure the protection of the Constitutional rights of the Petitioner and the arrest could have been only made on recording the reasonable satisfaction reached, as to the genuineness and bonafide of the complaint and reasonable belief of the Petitioner’s complicity in the offence and even as to the need to arrest”, it held.

The Court, therefore, concluded that denial of liberty of a person is a serious matter and in absence of any reasonable justification, in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary, and when a person is arrested in flagrant violation of the Constitutional mandate and the statutory protection granted to him, there is no other option than to declare the arrest as illegal.

Accordingly, the High Court declared the arrest as illegal and directed the accused’s release on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate (First Class).

Cause Title- Chandrashekhar Bhimsen Naik v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:53286-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Kushal Mor, Tanmay Karmarkar, Vaibhav Hari, Rishab Khot, Ashish Prasad, Anubha Rastogi, Aditya Joshi, and Tanmay Karmarkar.

Respondents: APP Supriya Kak

Click here to read/download the Judgment