Bombay High Court Reinforces Arnesh Kumar Guidelines, Directs Affidavit from Investigating Officer and Expedited Bail Hearing
In a groundbreaking judgment that underscores the importance of procedural safeguards in criminal law, the Bombay High Court has strongly condemned the arrest of a woman by Mumbai Police, declaring it prima facie “illegal” and executed without “any application of mind.” The ruling, delivered on November 19, 2025, emphasizes the mandatory compliance with arrest procedures under the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and the Supreme Court’s landmark guidelines in the Arnesh Kumar case.
The Case and Legal Challenge
The Bombay High Court was hearing Criminal Writ Petition No. 6052 of 2025, filed by Nandini Rajaram Belekar, who challenged her arrest by the Gamdevi police station on November 14, 2025. The petitioner argued that the arrest violated Section 35(1)(b)(ii) of the BNSS, which requires police officers to record in writing the specific reasons necessitating an arrest, particularly for offenses carrying a punishment of less than seven years. The case against Belekar involved Sections 76, 115(2), and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), all punishable with less than seven years’ imprisonment.
Reinforcement of Arnesh Kumar Principles
The Bombay High Court’s order reaffirmed the core principles established in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), which mandate that for offenses with sentences under seven years, arrest must be an exception, not the rule. The police are required to justify arrests by fulfilling specific conditions, such as preventing evidence tampering or witness intimidation, and must record this satisfaction in writing before making an arrest. The bench observed that the investigating officer had failed to adhere to these legal requirements, rendering the arrest unlawful.
Court’s Scrutiny of Arrest Reasons
During the proceedings, the Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Tanveer Khan, could not produce evidence that the arresting officer had recorded the necessary satisfaction. The reasons cited in the case diary—such as investigating the involvement of other accused, preventing evidence destruction, and witness protection—were deemed “completely averse” to legal standards. The Bombay High Court noted that the complaint solely implicated Belekar, making the stated grounds for arrest untenable. The bench remarked, “Prima facie, we find the arrest is without any application of mind,” and criticized the “reasons for arrest” as a mere “faction.”
Accountability and Affidavit Directive
Expressing deep concern over the blatant disregard for legal norms, the court emphasized the need to hold the investigating officer accountable. It directed the officer to file an affidavit within two weeks, explaining the lapse and detailing the steps taken to comply with arrest procedures. The bench stated its intention to “fix responsibility” for the violation, signaling a strict approach to enforcing procedural compliance.
Magistrate’s Role and Bail Hearing
In a significant aside, the court addressed the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), 40th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai, for keeping Belekar’s bail application in abeyance pending the outcome of the habeas corpus petition. The bench clarified that the pendency of a habeas corpus petition cannot justify delaying a bail application, which is a fundamental right of the accused. It directed the magistrate to expedite the bail hearing and decide on the application based on its merits.
Broader Implications
This ruling serves as a critical reminder to law enforcement agencies about the sanctity of procedural justice. It highlights the judiciary’s role in protecting individual liberties and ensuring that legal safeguards are not undermined. The Bombay High Court’s directive to the magistrate further reinforces the importance of timely justice and the need to avoid procedural delays that infringe upon fundamental rights.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court’s ruling marks a significant step toward curbing arbitrary arrests and upholding the rule of law. By reinforcing the Arnesh Kumar guidelines and mandating accountability, the judgment strengthens the legal framework protecting citizens’ rights. The case has been adjourned to December 10, 2025, for further proceedings, including the submission of the investigating officer’s affidavit. This decision is expected to have far-reaching implications for arrest procedures across the country, ensuring that police powers are exercised with due diligence and respect for legal norms.
Case Number:- Criminal Writ Petition No.6052 OF 2025
Advocate For the Petitioner: Mr. K. A. Shinde
Advocate For the Respondent-State: Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP (Additional Public Prosecutor)
