Home  > Recent Judgements  > Bombay High Court Slams Collective Arrest Logic: ‘Each Accused Needs Separate Grounds’; “S. 35 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023”, Arrest Is An’Individualized Act’.

Dec  12- 2025

Bombay High Court Slams Collective Arrest Logic: ‘Each Accused Needs Separate Grounds’; “S. 35 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023”, Arrest Is An’Individualized Act’.

Case title – Chandrashekhar Bhimsen Naik vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

In a significant pronouncement reinforcing personal liberty and procedural safeguards, the Bombay High Court has held that arrest is an “Individualized Act” and cannot be justified through collective or group-based reasoning. Investigating agencies, therefore, must record distinct, fact-specific grounds for arresting each person, even when several individuals are implicated in a common FIR.

Interpreting the requirements under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the Court emphasized that reasons for arrest cannot be a mechanical reproduction of statutory clauses, but it must reflect specific conclusions independently drawn by the Investigating Officer after evaluating the individual’s conduct and circumstances in the case.

A Division Bench of JUSTICE BHARATI DANGRE and JUSTICE SHYAM C. CHANDAK declared the arrest of a corporate executive in a “Deepfake Advertisement Scam” FIR as illegal, reiterating that the police cannot justify an arrest merely because multiple persons are named together. For each arrest, the police must articulate a distinct, individualized basis rooted in material on record.

The Court underscored this requirement in categorical terms:

“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. Definitely all these parameters cannot be common to each of the accused and they must be individualistic”.

Case in Brief

The petition before the Bombay High Court arose from an FIR registered by well-knownSecurities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) registered Research Analyst Prakash Gaba. He alleged that fraudsters had used Artificial Intelligence (AI)-generated deepfake videos of him to promote fake investment advertisements, which were circulated widely to mislead investors.

Although Chandrashekhar Bhimsen Naik, Senior Vice President of a Bengaluru-based digital technology company, was not initially named in the FIR registered under Section 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 356(2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 66C & 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, he was arrested on 16 October 2025 following hours of interrogation and after other employees of his firm had been detained.

Crucially, the police did not issue a mandatory notice under Section 35(3) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 requiring a notice of appearance instead of arrest for offences punishable with less than seven yearsdespite Naik’s cooperation during the search at his residence.

The police attempted to justify the arrest by placing before the Magistrate a remand checklist under Section 35 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, citing generic grounds such as the need to “collect computer evidence,” “prevent destruction of technical evidence,” and the “international magnitude of the offence.”

Arguments

Challenging the arrest, Advocate Kushal Mor, appearing for the petitioner, argued that Section 35 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (analogous to Section 41 Code of Criminal Procedure of India, 1973) mandates the recording of specific and individualized reasons before effecting an arrest in cases punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years.

It was submitted that the Investigating Officer merely reproduced the statutory language of Section 35(1)(b)(ii), relying on vague and templated grounds without linking them to the petitioner’s actual role. The “Reasons for Arrest,” counsel argued, lacked any factual foundation and amounted to a ritualistic exercise rather than a reasoned decision.

Further, the arrest reasons recorded for Naik were identical to those cited for co-accused persons apprehended earlier, demonstrating a complete failure to consider his distinct role, circumstances, or degree of involvement.

The counsel additionally challenged the remand order, asserting that the Magistrate failed to apply judicial mind as mandated under Section 167 Code of Criminal Procedure of India, 1973, as he did not verify whether the police had complied with Section 41 Code of Criminal Procedure of India, 1973/ Section 35 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023before authorizing detention.

In essence, the petitioner questioned both:

(a) the existence and validity of the “Reasons for Arrest”, and

(b) the Magistrate’s statutory duty to examine the legality of the arrest before authorizing remand.

The State defended the arrest, asserting seriousness of the offence and contending that the petitioner had deleted WhatsApp messages, which raised apprehensions of evidence tampering. It was also argued that Naik had a direct role in instructing “BM ID Ads” for a “Chinese customer” and disregarded Meta’s “Yellow Flags” related to deepfake content.

High Court’s Observations

Justice Bharati Dangre, writing for the Bench, unequivocally rejected the police’s approach of providing common reasons for multiple accused persons. While Section 35(1)(b)(ii) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023lists the statutory grounds that may justify an arrest, the Court held that these cannot serve as generic checkboxes.

The Investigating Officer is dutybound to evaluate each accused independently and record reasons that demonstrate:

  • why custodial interrogation is necessary,
  • whether the accused poses a flight risk,
  • the likelihood of tampering with evidence, and
  • the potential to influence witnesses.

Failure to do so, the Court held, reflects clear non-application of mind.

The Bench observed:                                     

“In the present case, by referring to the collective reasons for arrest, we find that in absence of individual reasons, the arrest has become illegal.”

The Court was equally critical of the Remand Magistrate, describing his approach as “entirely mechanical.” Reliance was placed on ARNESH KUMAR V. STATE OF BIHAR (2014), which obligates Magistrates to scrutinize the reasons for arrest rather than accept the police’s assertions at face value.

Finding violation of Article 21 and statutory safeguards under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Court held the arrest illegal and directed Naik’s immediate release.

In its 36-page judgement, the Bench also invoked the Supreme Court’s powerful observation in JOGINDER KUMAR V. STATE OF UP (1994), reminding the justice system of the deeper philosophy that underpins lawful arrest procedures:

“The quality of a nation’s civilisation can be largely measured by the methods it used in the enforcement of the criminal law”.