In a significant ruling emphasizing personal liberty, the Bombay High Court has declared the arrest of a senior corporate executive in a cybercrime case as illegal and ordered his immediate release. The court strongly criticized the police for failing to record specific reasons for the individual's arrest and the magistrate for mechanically approving police custody.
Court Condemns "Collective" Arrest Approach
The bench of Justices Bharti Dangre and Shyam Chandak held that an arrest is an individual act, and the reasons for it must reflect the accused's personal role, not collective conduct. The court made these observations while hearing a plea filed by Chandrashekhar Naik, a senior Vice President at a digital technology firm.
Naik was arrested by the Bandra cyber police on October 16 in connection with a share market fraud case. An FIR in the matter was lodged on September 29, but notably, Naik was not named as an accused initially. Police had arrested three other employees on October 10.
Chronology of a Flawed Arrest
According to Naik's counsel, Advocate Kushal Mor, the police visited Naik's residence on October 15 without any prior summons or notice. Despite his full cooperation, they escorted him to the police station and showed him as arrested at 1 a.m. the next day. The arrest was made without providing him specific reasons for his detention.
A magistrate subsequently remanded Naik to police custody for four days, after which he was sent to Taloja jail. The High Court, in its order dated December 3 (made available on Friday), found glaring procedural lapses in this entire process.
Landmark Directives on Arrest and Remand Procedures
The court underscored that the law mandates police to record reasons in writing before an arrest. These reasons must be specific to the individual, such as the person being a flight risk or having the potential to tamper with evidence or witnesses.
The judges categorically stated that a "police officer cannot record common reasons for arrest" even if the offence is jointly committed. They emphasized that the reasons must solely relate to the individual being arrested.
Turning its scrutiny to the magistrate's role, the court criticized the judicial officer for "failing to discharge his obligations." The bench ruled that a magistrate must not mechanically approve police requests for detention but must apply an independent mind.
"A magistrate shall not mechanically approve the police request for detention but apply his mind. Only on being satisfied that the reasons recorded by the police officer are sufficient enough to detain the accused, [should he] grant the custody," the order stated.
The court directed that magistrates must scrutinize the reasons for each accused independently and cannot accept a common remand note. They must insist on distinct reasons for each arrest and examine them separately.
Immediate Release and Broader Implications
Finding that the mandatory individual reasons for Naik's arrest were absent, the High Court directed his immediate release on a personal recognisance bond of Rs 50,000.
The ruling serves as a powerful reinforcement of procedural safeguards designed to prevent potential coercive practices by law enforcement. The court stressed that these safeguards exist to ensure that an individual's personal liberty is not irreversibly trampled upon. This judgment is expected to have far-reaching implications for arrest and remand procedures in Maharashtra, particularly in multi-accused cases involving cybercrime and financial fraud.
