The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that arrest under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, must be a last resort, grounded in necessity and procedural rigor. While dismissing a writ petition challenging the legality of arrest in a Rs. 300 crore land fraud case, the Court emphasized that constitutional safeguards for personal liberty are non-negotiable, even in grave economic offences.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Ms. Sheetal Kisanchand Tejwani, a businesswoman, was arrested in connection with FIR No. 552/2025 registered at Khadak Police Station, Pune. The case alleges a criminal conspiracy to defraud the State Government by fraudulently selling Survey No. 88, Mundhwa, Pune - a Mahar Vatan land owned by the State - to M/s Amedia Enterprises for Rs. 300 crores. The petitioner, acting under a Power of Attorney, executed and registered a sale deed on 20.02.2025, falsely claiming that the land had been re-granted to the original Vatandars. This claim was contradicted by prior judicial and administrative orders from 2013 and 2021, which had rejected her applications for re-grant.
Key Facts
- The subject land was never re-granted to the Vatandars; State ownership remained unchallenged.
- The petitioner had filed multiple applications before revenue authorities between 2013 and 2024, falsely asserting re-grant had occurred.
- She annexed a closed 7/12 extract (a land record document) to the sale deed to mislead the buyer and authorities.
- The petitioner had previously filed writ petitions challenging State orders on the land, all of which were dismissed.
- The Investigating Officer issued notices under Section 35(3) of BNSS 2023 on 15.11.2025, 21.11.2025, and 24.11.2025.
- The petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer on 18.11.2025 and 20.11.2025, submitting documents.
- On 21.11.2025, she cited ill health as reason for non-appearance.
- On 3.12.2025, she appeared at the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Pune, at 3:35 p.m. and was arrested at 4:10 p.m.
- The grounds of arrest were recorded in Marathi and furnished to her at 4:36 p.m. on the same day.
- A copy was also sent to her nominated representative.
- She was produced before the Magistrate on 4.12.2025 at 3:30 p.m.
Procedural History
- 15.11.2025: First notice issued under Section 35(3) BNSS 2023
- 18.11.2025: Petitioner appeared before IO, submitted documents
- 20.11.2025: Second appearance, further documents submitted
- 21.11.2025: Petitioner notified inability to appear due to ill health
- 24.11.2025: Petitioner submitted additional documents
- 3.12.2025: Petitioner appeared at EOW at 3:35 p.m., arrested at 4:10 p.m.
- 3.12.2025: Grounds of arrest furnished at 4:36 p.m.; intimation sent to nominee
- 4.12.2025: Produced before Magistrate at 3:30 p.m. (23 hours 20 minutes after arrest)
- 4.12.2025: Magistrate remanded petitioner to police custody
- 17.04.2026: Bombay High Court delivered judgment on Writ Petition No. 6690 of 2025
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Argued arrest was illegal because: (1) she fully cooperated with investigation; (2) grounds of arrest were not furnished simultaneously; (3) grounds were communicated in Marathi despite her alleged lack of understanding; (4) arrest occurred at 2:00 p.m. when she entered EOW, making production beyond 24 hours.
Respondent (State): Contended arrest was necessary due to the gravity of the offence, the petitioner’s role as prime conspirator, and risk of evidence tampering. Asserted compliance with BNSS 2023: grounds were furnished at 4:36 p.m. on 3.12.2025; petitioner understood Marathi through prior documents and interactions; production before Magistrate was within 24 hours.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of her arrest, declaration that the remand order was illegal, and release from custody on grounds of violation of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and Sections 35, 47, and 48 of BNSS 2023.
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether the arrest was necessary under Section 35(1)(b)(ii) of BNSS 2023 despite the petitioner’s cooperation with investigation? (2) Whether the grounds of arrest were furnished simultaneously and in a language the petitioner understood, as mandated by Article 22(1) and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra? (3) Whether the petitioner’s liberty was restrained at 2:00 p.m., rendering her production before the Magistrate beyond the 24-hour limit?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. Ajay Bhise relied on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satyendra Kumar Antil v. CBI to argue that arrest is not automatic even for cognizable offences. He contended that since the petitioner had appeared twice, submitted documents, and cooperated fully, arrest was unnecessary. He further argued that the grounds of arrest were furnished at 9:05 p.m., violating the requirement of immediate communication under Mihir Shah. He cited Ashak Hussain Allah Detha to assert that restraint began at 2:00 p.m. when she entered the EOW office, making her production at 3:30 p.m. the next day a violation of Article 22(1). He emphasized that the grounds were in Marathi, and the petitioner, a non-Marathi speaker, was denied meaningful access to her defence.
For the Respondent
Ms. Mankuwar Deshmukh, Public Prosecutor, countered that the petitioner was the prime beneficiary of a Rs. 300 crore fraud involving State land, with a history of repeated false claims. She submitted that the Investigating Officer had recorded detailed reasons for arrest in writing, as required under Section 35(1)(b)(ii). The grounds were furnished at 4:36 p.m. on 3.12.2025, as recorded in the station diary. The petitioner had executed 77 Power of Attorney documents and 43 development agreements in Marathi, and had responded to notices in Marathi. Her claim of not understanding Marathi was a subterfuge. Production before the Magistrate occurred within 24 hours of actual arrest at 4:10 p.m.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by affirming that arrest is a drastic measure, and the power under Section 35(1)(b)(ii) of BNSS 2023 must be exercised only when necessity is established. The Court noted that the conditions for necessity - including risk of evidence tampering, non-appearance, or further offence - were clearly articulated in the grounds of arrest. The petitioner’s role in fabricating documents, concealing prior rejections of re-grant, and executing a fraudulent sale deed satisfied the threshold for necessity.
"The grounds of arrest did furnish sufficient knowledge of the facts constituting the grounds on which the petitioner came to be arrested so as to equip the petitioner to defend herself."
The Court rejected the petitioner’s claim that grounds were furnished at 9:05 p.m., distinguishing between the "grounds of arrest" (furnished at 4:36 p.m.) and the "reasons for arrest" (recorded later at 9:05 p.m.). The station diary and Exhibit-A Coll. confirmed contemporaneous compliance with Section 47 of BNSS 2023.
On the language issue, the Court relied on Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, which held that communication of grounds must be in a language the accused understands to make Article 22(1) meaningful. However, the Court found the petitioner’s claim of ignorance of Marathi unsustainable. The record showed she had executed over 77 Power of Attorney documents, 43 development agreements, and responded to notices in Marathi. She had never raised any language barrier during prior interactions with authorities. The Court concluded that the communication of grounds in Marathi was effective and did not violate constitutional rights.
Regarding the timing of arrest, the Court acknowledged the principle from Ashak Hussain Allah Detha that arrest begins with restraint on liberty. However, it found no evidence to support the petitioner’s claim that restraint commenced at 2:00 p.m. The CCTV footage and station diary entries placed her arrival at 3:35 p.m., with arrest at 4:10 p.m. Production before the Magistrate at 3:30 p.m. the next day was therefore within the 24-hour window.
The Court held that the Magistrate’s remand order was not mechanical but based on the Investigating Officer’s detailed justification. No procedural violation was established.
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that the arrest of the petitioner was lawful, the grounds of arrest were furnished contemporaneously and in a language she understood, and her production before the Magistrate was within the 24-hour limit under Article 22(1). The remand order dated 4.12.2025 was upheld. The petitioner remains in custody pending trial.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Cooperation Does Not Automatically Preclude Arrest
- Practitioners must argue necessity under Section 35(1)(b)(ii) BNSS 2023, not mere cooperation. Even if an accused responds to notices and submits documents, arrest may still be justified if the offence involves large-scale fraud, falsification of records, or risk of evidence destruction.
- The burden shifts to the accused to prove absence of necessity - not merely to show compliance.
Language of Arrest Must Be Proven, Not Alleged
- Claims of language barrier must be substantiated with contemporaneous evidence. If an accused has previously communicated, executed documents, or responded to notices in the local language, courts will treat claims of ignorance as tactical.
- Prosecutors should maintain records of all prior communications in local language to rebut such claims.
Time of Arrest Is Determined by Objective Restraint, Not Subjective Claim
- The moment of arrest is determined by credible contemporaneous records - CCTV, station diary, electronic logs - not by the accused’s assertion.
- Courts will not accept speculative claims of restraint (e.g., "entered office = arrested") without corroborating evidence.
