Arrest requires clear individual justification; collective reasoning violates procedural safeguards and renders the arrest illegal.

JUDGMENT :

BHARATI DANGRE, J.

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

The above remark in the Judgment of the Apex Court in Jogindar Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260 holds good even after three decades and the case before us make us, introspect, where our criminal justice system stands today.

2 FIR No.293/2025 came to be registered with Cyber Police Station West Region, Mumbai on 29/09/2025 at 19.05 hours on the complaint filed by Prakash Gopichand Gaba, a SEBI registered Research Analyst, working as Stock Market Expert.

He made a grievance about he being informed by his friends and relatives that since June 2025 his fake videos (deepfake) of an advertisement about investment in the stock market is going viral on social media and that many people had invested in the stock market after viewing the advertisement. The complainant give advise on stock market on CNBC Awaaz, a Hindi TV Channel, as regards buying and selling of shares and he also has accounts on social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly twitter) Telegram and You Tube and he is also engaged in conduct of OnLine classes on stock trading.

Upon such information being brought to his knowledge, he went to the Facebook Ad Library and on search was shocked to find videos on Ad Library ID and noticed that it was a deepfake app. He collected URL of the said video and on noticing that from June 2005 some unknown persons had used his video on social media related to stock market investments and by circulating it on social media platforms has defrauded people financially, he lodged a complaint.

The aforesaid complaint resulted into registration of the subject FIR, which invoked Section 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 356(2) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 66 C and 66 D of Information Technology Act, 2000.

3 The Petitioner is gainfully employed as Senior Vice President (Business Development) at Valueleaf Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated in the year 2009 having its registered office at Bengaluru, Karnataka. The company is engaged in the business of digital technology and provide advance digital growth solutions, that enable entities to optimize their advertising campaigns for improved lead generation and other metrics.

In FIR No.293/2025, the Petitioner is not arraigned as accused, but on 09/10/2025, the Respondent visited the company’s Bengaluru office and as per the Petitioner, its employees were interrogated and three employees of the company were arrested in connection with the subject FIR on 09/10/2025.

The Petitioner did not receive any summons nor was he called for any interrogation, but on 15/10/2025 at around 7.00 to 7.30 p.m. , the officers of Cyber Police Station visited his residence without serving any prior notice/intimation, as required under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, but the Petitioner co-operated with the officials, who interrogated him until late night and according to the Petitioner he provided all responses to the best of his knowledge. The officers asked for his mobile phone and laptop and the Petitioner willingly handed over the devices to them, but no Panchanama of seizure was drawn. Thereafter, the Petitioner was escorted to Cyber Police Station, West Region at Bandra (West) and his arrest was shown at 00.01 a.m. on 16/10/2025, despite his co-operation in the investigation.

According to the Petitioner, one of his relative Mr. Arun Lal was furnished intimation about his arrest as per Section 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (BNSS), 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) and the grounds/reasons of his arrest under Section 47 of the BNSS were furnished to him, but as per the Petitioner they are not compliant with the mandate of law, as the purported grounds communicated were completely vague and generic.

Upon the arrest of the Petitioner, at an untimely hour, he was produced before the 12^th Court, Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra al