Arrest After Sunset Without Magistrate’s Permission Is Illegal: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Woman In ₹242 Crore Fraud Case
The Court said the arrest violated both statutory safeguards under CrPC and constitutional rights under Article 21 and Article 22(1).
Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke, Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench
The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a woman accused of large-scale financial fraud involving ₹242 crore, after holding that her arrest post-sunset was prima facie in breach of Section 46(4) of the CrPC and without requisite judicial permission.
A Single Bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke observed, “Perusal of Section 46(4) would make it amply clear that it mandates that no woman shall be arrested after sunset and before sunrise, except in exceptional circumstances for which also prior permission of Judicial Magistrate is required.”
The Court added, “The arrest of the present applicant is after sunset, which is illegal… The grounds of arrest are also not communicated to the friends/relatives of the applicant and, therefore, such arrest, in the light of the judgment in the case of Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, is illegal.”
Senior Advocate S.V. Manohar appeared for the Applicant, while Senior Public Prosecutor D.V. Chauhan represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Applicant had filed a bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with a case registered for offences under Sections 109, 120-B, 406, 409, 417, 420, 421, 424, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of the IPC and under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999.
She had been arrested in relation to allegations that while working as the Chief Executive Officer of a cooperative bank, she facilitated the disbursal of fraudulent loans to her husband and relatives, bypassing due procedure and Board approvals. The Special Auditor’s report showed the total fraud amount at over ₹242 crore, with ₹1.88 crore directly linked to her family members.
It was also contended that loans sanctioned in her relatives’ names were routed to her husband’s account, and critical documentation regarding the loans had been destroyed in violation of RBI guidelines.
The Respondent claimed that she played a key role in supervising, verifying and disbursing loan proposals without authority, and cited statements from bank employees and auditors to indicate her complicity in the alleged fraud.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court noted the arrest procedure and noted that while some documents recorded the arrest time as 5:30 PM, others indicated it occurred at 10:39 PM. Referring to Section 46(4) of the CrPC, the Court observed, “The mandate of sub-section (4) of Section 46 is that no woman be arrested after sunset and before sunrise and in exceptional circumstances, she may be so arrested by a Lady Police Officer by making a report and obtaining permission of the Judicial Magistrate First Class for effecting such an arrest.”
Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court decision in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025), the Court further observed that mere information about the arrest does not amount to compliance with the constitutional and statutory requirement of informing the grounds of arrest. “Information about the arrest is completely different from the grounds of arrest. Mere information of arrest will not amount to furnishing grounds of arrest”, it added.
The Bench noted, “Requirement for communicating the grounds of arrest, to be purposeful, is also required to be communicated to the friends, relatives or such other persons… so they would be able to take immediate and prompt actions to secure the release of the arrested person.”
The Court observed that although the offence involved significant economic fraud, it found that the illegality of the arrest and failure to communicate grounds of arrest were fundamental violations of the Petitioner’s rights under Article 21 and Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
The Court stated, “As observed earlier, involvement of the applicant reveals in the economic offence. At the same time, it reveals that the arrest of the present applicant is after sunset, which is illegal…”
Accordingly, bail was granted to the Applicant subject to conditions including surrender of passport, cooperation with the investigation, and restrictions on travel outside the district.
Cause Title: Smt. Sujata v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:6601)
Appearances:
Applicant: Senior Advocate S.V. Manohar; Advocates Atharva Manohar.
Respondent: Senior Public Prosecutor D.V. Chauhan; Additional Public Prosecutor Anant Ghongre
