Anil Ramesh Parerao vs State of Maharashtra — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

Anil Ramesh Parerao vs State of Maharashtra — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both writ petitions allowed and rule made absolute to that extent: the arrest of the petitioners dated 10 October 2025 and the remand order dated 11 October 2025 declared illegal, and consequentially all subsequent orders of remand and detention declared illegal; petitioners set at liberty (if not required to be detained in any other case) upon furnishing PR bond of Rs.50,000/- each with one or more sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, MCOCA, subject to conditions of not contacting the first informant, victim or their relatives, not tampering with prosecution evidence, not making any inducement, threat or promise, and regularly attending proceedings before the jurisdictional Court; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the arrest of the petitioners effected without issuing a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 was warranted, given that the offences initially charged carried punishment not exceeding seven years and the FIR followed a delay of about a year. +4 more

Court's answer

Drawing on Arnesh Kumar and Satyendra Kumar Antil, the Court lays down that arrest is not mandatory: where a person is suspected of a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than or extend to seven years, arrest may be resorted to only if the officer has reason to believe the person committed the offence and is satisfied the arrest is necessary, the necessity conditions being stipulated in sub-clauses (a) to (e) of Section 35(1)(b)(ii).

Ratio / Principle

On the facts — incident of 23 August 2024, written complaint only on 12 August 2025, preliminary enquiry consuming over two months, and arrest within hours of FIR registration on 10 October 2025 for an offence entailing punishment which may extend to seven years — the element of delay and the absence of exigency lead to the inexorable inference that immediate arrest of the petitioners without complying with the mandate contained in Section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023 was not warranted; the omission vitiated the arrest.

Key takeaways

The reasons for arrest recorded in the checklist fail the statutory mandate: reason Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 are mere reproductions of statutory text, and the checklist nowhere discloses on what basis, in what circumstances and for which reasons the Investigating Officer found the arrest of the petitioners necessary; mere reproduction of statutory language is not sufficient compliance of the mandate of law.ratio¶150
Attribution of identical, verbatim-common reasons for arrest to Mimit (A3) and Anil (A2) — whose roles in the alleged occurrence are completely dissimilar, reason No. 4 (wrongful loss via conspiracy in a financial transaction) being inapposite qua Anil (A2) who had admittedly no financial transactions with the first informant — prima facie betrays non-application of mind; consistent with Chandrashekhar Bhimsen Naik, arrest is an individualised act requiring accused-specific necessity.ratio¶154

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P. 5552/2025 (Mimit Ajit Bhuta) with W.P. 5553/2025 (Anil Ramesh Parerao) v. State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, N.J. Jamadar, J. (reserved 29-01-2026; pronounced 10-03-2026). Following FIR C.R. No. 596/2025 (Chembur PS; re-registered CR No. 92/2025, DCB CID) under Sections 308(4), 61(2), 3(5) BNSS — the major charge being putting the first informant and witness in fear of life or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion, punishable up to seven years — the petitioners were arrested on 10-10-2025 without a Section 35(3) notice and remanded on 11-10-2025; MCOCA (prior approval u/S. 23(1)) was invoked pendente lite with further Special Court remands. Held: (i) the year-long delay in lodging the FIR negated both gravity and exigency — immediate arrest without S.35(3) notice was unwarranted (per Arnesh Kumar; Satyendra Kumar Antil); (ii) checklist reason Nos. 1–3 and 6 were bare statutory-template reproductions, with no factual spelling-out of arrest-necessity; (iii) verbatim-identical reasons qua A2 and A3 despite dissimilar roles (reason No. 4 inapposite qua A2) betrayed non-application of mind, aligning with Chandrashekhar Bhimsen Naik (Div. Bench) on accused-wise individualised arrest; (iv) the learned Magistrate authorized detention without independent review of the arrest reasons; (v) grounds of arrest were never communicated to the relatives (per Vihaan Kumar), and the prosecution's 'no demonstrable prejudice' plea via Sri Darshan was distinguished — its facts differed (bail cancellation, chargesheet filed, grounds served immediately), as clarified in Ahmed Mansoor, which approves Vihaan Kumar. The initial arrest and remand were declared illegal; all subsequent remand/detention orders fell with them; the petitioners were ordered released on PR bond of Rs. 50,000/- each with like sureties before the Special Judge, MCOCA, subject to no-contact, no-tampering and attendance conditions. Also cites Joginder Kumar, Prabir Purkayastha, Mihir Rajesh Shah, and Chanda Deepak Kochar (referred).

Issues for consideration

5 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the arrest of the petitioners effected without issuing a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 was warranted, given that the offences initially charged carried punishment not exceeding seven years and the FIR followed a delay of about a year.¶95
The court held
Drawing on Arnesh Kumar and Satyendra Kumar Antil, the Court lays down that arrest is not mandatory: where a person is suspected of a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than or extend to seven years, arrest may be resorted to only if the officer has reason to believe the person committed the offence and is satisfied the arrest is necessary, the necessity conditions being stipulated in sub-clauses (a) to (e) of Section 35(1)(b)(ii).ratio¶91
2.
Whether the grounds of arrest communicated to the petitioners and the reasons for arrest recorded by the Investigating Officer in the checklist justified the arrest, or amounted to template/common reproductions betraying non-application of mind.¶96
The court held
The reasons for arrest recorded in the checklist fail the statutory mandate: reason Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 are mere reproductions of statutory text, and the checklist nowhere discloses on what basis, in what circumstances and for which reasons the Investigating Officer found the arrest of the petitioners necessary; mere reproduction of statutory language is not sufficient compliance of the mandate of law.ratio¶150
3.
Whether the provisions of Section 48 BNSS were observed — specifically whether the grounds of arrest were communicated to the relatives/friends of the petitioners and whether the intimation of arrest disclosed the place of detention.¶179
The court held
The intimation of arrest given to the relatives recorded only the arrest on 10 October 2025 and production before the Magistrate on 11 October 2025; the grounds of arrest were evidently not communicated to the relatives, and the prosecution does not claim otherwise — the third count of infraction pressed on behalf of the petitioners is borne out by the record.ratio¶179
4.
Whether the learned Magistrate, before authorizing remand and detention, reviewed the justifiability of the reasons for arrest and satisfied himself independently against the constitutional safeguards and statutory prescriptions.¶178
The court held
The learned Magistrate, while authorizing the detention of the petitioners, does not seem to have applied his mind and satisfied himself about the sufficiency of the reasons for arrest placed before him in the form of a checklist — merely recording that the IO had given reasons and grounds of arrest — and did not review the justifiability of the reasons for arrest on the touchstone of the constitutional safeguards, statutory prescriptions and the duty cast on the Magistrate by authoritative precedents.ratio¶174
5.
Whether, the initial arrest and remand having been found illegal, the subsequent orders of remand and detention — including those passed after invocation of MCOCA provisions — can stand, or must equally fall.¶41
The court held
Once the very arrest and remand of the petitioners are found to be illegal, the subsequent orders of remand do not infuse legality into the initial orders; consequently all subsequent orders of remand and detention stand declared illegal and the petitioners deserve to be set at liberty.ratio¶189

Cite this judgement

Anil Ramesh Parerao v. State of Maharashtra, WP/5553/2025 (BOM), decided on 14 January 2026.

The Bombay High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited10

Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and anr.Relied on¶75
Satyendra Kumar Antil vs. CBIRelied on¶80
Chandrashekhar Bhimsen Naik vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.Relied on¶155

View all cases cited

Statutes14

Constitution of IndiaArticles 226, 227 · Article 21 · Article 22(1) · Articles 21, 22
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023528 · 35(1) · 35(3) · 35(1)(b)(ii) · 48 · 48 · 47 · 308(4), 61(2), 3(5)
Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 199923(1)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 197341 and 41A

View all statutes

Procedural history4

Arrest of the petitioners on 10 October 2025, the learned Magistrate's remand of 11 October 2025, and the subsequent orders of remand and detention passed by the Special Court, MCOCA after invocation of MCOCA provisions — challenged as illegal on grounds of non-compliance with Sections 35(1), 35(3) and 48 BNSS and violation of Articles 21 and 22.Learned Magistrate; Special Court, MCOCA · 2025-10-10 (arrest); 2025-10-11 (remand); 2025-11-18 (Special Court, MCOCA remand)
Written complaint lodged by first informant on 12 August 2025 after the incident of 23 August 2024; enquiry by CIU-DCB-CID, Mumbai revealed cognizable offences; FIR vide C.R. No. 596 of 2025 registered at Chembur Police Station on 10 October 2025 against Ravi @ Akash Bora @ D.K. Rao (A1), Mimit Bhuta (A3), Anil Parerao (A2), Tambi and associates for offences under Sections 308(4), 61(2) and 3(5) BNSS; investigation transferred to DCB CID and crime re-registered as CR No. 92/2025.
A1 arrested on 10 October 2025; petitioners arrested between 11.15 and 11.30 pm on 10 October 2025; produced before the learned Magistrate on 11 October 2025; after initial police custody remand, remanded to judicial custody.

View full history

Bench / Coram

N. J. Jamadar

Parties & counsel