The high-profile cybercrime case involving Bollywood actress Sonakshi Sinha took an unexpected legal turn when a Mumbai magistrate’s court ordered the immediate release of the accused. The court ruled that the arrest was unlawful because law enforcement agencies failed to comply with mandatory legal procedures and statutory safeguards outlined under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The case originated when Sonakshi Sinha approached the Bandra Police Station in Mumbai to file a formal complaint alleging that a Delhi-based individual had circulated objectionable, morphed photographs and videos of her across social media platforms. Acting on the complaint, a police team tracked down and arrested a Delhi resident named Aryan Deepak Jain from the Jagatpuri Police Station jurisdiction in Shahdara, Delhi. Following his apprehension, the accused was flown directly to Mumbai and presented before a local magistrate’s court, where investigators sought three days of police custody to recover electronic gadgets allegedly used to create and distribute the content.
Defense Arguments: Rushed Action and Failure to Serve Notice
During the hearing, a legal team comprising advocates Aman Shahi, Prashant Trivedi, and Aditya Jain fiercely contested the police’s custody plea. The defense argued that the entire operation was conducted in haste—allegedly influenced by the celebrity status of the complainant—without adhering to basic statutory protections.
The defense lawyers highlighted several critical infractions committed during the arrest:
Lack of Prior Notice: The accused was never served the mandatory pre-arrest notice required under law.
Ignorance of Grounds for Arrest: Authorities failed to officially inform Jain of the precise grounds for his detention at the time of apprehension.
Clandestine Transportation: The defense pointed out that the accused was hurriedly flown out of Delhi without being produced before a local magistrate within that jurisdiction, completely bypassing inter-state transit protocols.
Furthermore, the accused maintained his innocence, asserting that he had committed no offense and that the legal provisions invoked by the prosecution were prima facie inapplicable to the allegations.
Why the Court Ruled the Arrest Unlawful
The presiding magistrate scrutinized the records and concurred heavily with the defense’s observations regarding procedural violations. The court emphasized that for offenses carrying a maximum punishment of up to seven years, police officers are legally bound to comply strictly with Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSSwhich mandates recording specific reasons that necessitate an arrest rather than issuing a notice.
Crucially, the magistrate noted that the police failed to produce the accused before the nearest local magistrate in Delhi immediately after his arrest, choosing instead to transport him directly to Mumbai. The bench remarked that the investigative agency offered no satisfactory explanation on record for bypassing this mandatory jurisdictional requirement.
Reiterating established criminal jurisprudence, the court underscored that the mere necessity for “further investigation” or the desire to recover electronic devices does not grant law enforcement the blanket authority to detain individuals when fundamental legal safeguards and arrest protocols have been ignored. Consequently, the court rejected the police custody request and ordered the immediate release of Aryan Deepak Jain, dealing a temporary procedural setback to the high-profile investigation.