Delhi High Court Upholds Arrest in Financial Fraud Case, Finds No Procedural Lapses Under New Laws

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on August 12, 2025, dismissed a writ petition challenging the legality of an arrest in a multi-crore financial fraud case, holding that the police had complied with the procedural safeguards mandated under the Constitution and the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

Justice Amit Sharma, while adjudicating the petition filed by Divesh Rawat, found no merit in the claims that he was produced before a magistrate beyond the stipulated 24-hour period or that the grounds of his arrest were not properly communicated.

---

Background of the Case

The case originates from FIR No. 29/2025, registered by the Delhi Police Crime Branch under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, concerning cheating and forgery. The complainant alleged that Mr. Rawat, through his firm DD Enterprises, induced him and several others to invest approximately ₹1.24 crore by promising high returns, but later defaulted on payments and fabricated investment portfolios.

Following the FIR, Mr. Rawat and his father engaged in a series of legal actions, including seeking a court-monitored investigation and transfer of the case. On June 15, 2025, Mr. Rawat joined the investigation at the Crime Branch office at 11:00 AM and was formally arrested at 11:44 PM the same day. He was subsequently remanded to police custody.

Mr. Rawat filed the present writ petition seeking to declare his arrest illegal and to quash the remand orders, raising critical questions about procedural compliance during his detention.

---

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner, represented by Mr. Chirag Madan, raised three primary objections:

1. Illegal Detention: It was argued that Mr. Rawat was effectively detained from 11:00 AM on June 15, 2025, but was produced before the Duty Magistrate only at 3:30 PM on June 16, 2025, exceeding the 24-hour limit prescribed by Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 58 of the BNSS.
2. Non-Communication of Arrest Grounds: The petitioner contended that the grounds for his arrest were not provided to him "forthwith" upon arrest but were handed to him in court just before the remand hearing.
3. Failure to Inform Family: It was further submitted that the grounds of arrest were not supplied to his family members, violating the principles established in landmark Supreme Court judgments.

---

State's Rebuttal and Court's Analysis

The State, represented by ASC Sanjeev Bhandari, countered these claims by submitting an affidavit from the Investigating Officer. The prosecution maintained that Mr. Rawat was not under continuous restraint before his formal arrest.

The affidavit detailed that Mr. Rawat "had gone out for lunch with his father at 01:30 PM and came back at around 02:30 PM on 15.06.2025."

The State also produced call records showing Mr. Rawat was in frequent contact with his father via a mobile phone throughout the day, suggesting he was not incommunicado or physically restrained.

The High Court meticulously analyzed these conflicting claims. Justice Sharma noted that the petitioner's simple denial was insufficient to discredit the State's detailed affidavit. The Court observed:

"If the petitioner’s movement had been restrained any time before that, he could have informed his father via phone which the petitioner was using to be in touch with him. The frequency of calls will also suggest that both the petitioner and his father were in constant touch with each other continuously."

On the issue of supplying the grounds of arrest, the Court found the petitioner's arguments untenable. It highlighted the remand order dated June 16, 2025, where the Magistrate had explicitly recorded his perusal of "the arrest memo, the documents pertaining to grounds of arrest, reasons of arrest and the other annexed documents."

The Court pointed out that Mr. Rawat, who was actively availing legal remedies throughout the investigation, failed to raise the specific plea of non-supply of arrest grounds during the initial remand hearings on June 16 and June 18. This omission, the Court noted, "assumes significance and cannot be ignored to conclude that there was non-compliance."

The judgment distinguished the present facts from key precedents like Prabir Purkayastha and V. Senthil Balaji , where procedural lapses were more evident. Here, the presence of the petitioner's father at the police station and the Magistrate's own record of having seen the relevant documents weighed heavily in favor of the prosecution.

---

Final Decision and Implications

In dismissing the petition, the Court concluded that there was no violation of the petitioner's constitutional or statutory rights. The judgment reinforces that a mere allegation of illegal detention must be substantiated with more than a general denial, especially when contradicted by evidence presented by the State.

The ruling serves as an important judicial interpretation of arrest procedures under the new criminal codes, emphasizing that courts will look at the totality of circumstances—including the accused's access to legal counsel and communication channels—when assessing claims of procedural violations.

The Court clarified that its observations are limited to the adjudication of the present petition and will not influence the merits of the ongoing trial.