Chandrashekhar Bhimsen Naik v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2025
It upholds the rule of law and rights of the accused, ensuring that statutory safeguards are not bypassed even in high-profile cybercrime investigations.
Judgement Details
Court
Bombay High Court
Date of Decision
9 December 2025
Judges
Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Shyam C. Chandak
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
A high-profile FIR was registered concerning a deepfake advertisement fraud in the stock market.
-
Prakash Gaba, a SEBI-registered research analyst, alleged that fraudsters created and circulated fake AI-generated videos to mislead investors.
-
Chandrashekhar Bhimsen Naik, Senior Vice President at a Bengaluru-based digital firm, was arrested despite not being named in the initial FIR.
-
Naik had cooperated with police searches, but no prior notice was served under Section 35(3) BNSS.
-
The police justified the arrest using generic, group-based reasons, citing “collection of computer evidence,” “prevent destruction of evidence,” and “magnitude of offence at international level.”
Issues
-
Whether arrest can be justified on collective or group-based reasons when multiple persons are named in the same FIR?
-
Whether police must record individual, specific reasons for arrest under Section 35 BNSS?
-
Whether the Magistrate can authorize detention based on generic or mechanical remand notes?
-
Whether Naik’s arrest violated constitutional and statutory safeguards?
Judgement
-
The Bombay High Court declared the arrest illegal.
-
The Court emphasized that arrest is an individualized act, and police cannot justify it on the basis of multiple accused being named together.
-
It held that Section 35 BNSS requires fact-based conclusions for each accused, not mechanical reproduction of statutory language.
-
The Court criticized the Remand Magistrate for acting mechanically, merely accepting the police’s group-based remand checklist without scrutiny.
-
Naik was ordered to be immediately released.
Held
-
Police must record distinct, individual reasons for each arrest, considering factors like flight risk, potential evidence tampering, or custodial interrogation requirements.
-
Generic or group-based reasoning is insufficient and reflects non-application of mind.
-
Magistrates must scrutinize reasons for arrest rather than authorize detention on mere assertions of the police.
-
Arrests must comply with constitutional protections under Article 21 and statutory safeguards under BNSS.
Analysis
-
Reinforces the principle that arrest cannot be routine or mechanical; it must be individualized.
-
Upholds the rule of law and rights of the accused, ensuring that statutory safeguards are not bypassed even in high-profile cybercrime investigations.
-
Clarifies the responsibility of magistrates to verify arrest reasons and prevent arbitrary detention.
-
Signals that courts will closely examine group arrests to ensure each accused’s role and circumstances are considered.
-
Reiterates the Supreme Court’s observation in Jogindar Kumar v. State of UP: the quality of law enforcement reflects the nation’s commitment to justice.