In a packed courtroom on Wednesday, the Bombay High Court delivered a sharply-worded judgment that felt, at moments, like a mirror held up to India’s criminal justice system. The bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Shyam Chandak did not mince words while hearing Chandrashekhar Bhimsen Naik’s plea, a senior executive arrested in a sensational deepfake-fraud investigation.
The Court repeatedly questioned the police’s “copy-paste approach” to arrest and rebuked the Magistrate for authorising custody without proper scrutiny. “The act of arrest,” the bench remarked, “must never become a routine drill.”
Background
The Mumbai Cyber Police had registered an FIR in September 2025 after television stock-market analyst Prakash Gaba discovered deepfake videos of himself promoting dubious investment schemes. According to the complaint, the videos had gone viral for months and lured unsuspecting investors.
Naik, a Bengaluru-based Senior Vice President at a digital advertising company, was not originally named in the FIR. But officers visited his home on 15 October, questioned him late into the night, seized his devices without a formal seizure memo, and eventually arrested him just after midnight.
His legal team argued that the arrest was executed without issuing the mandatory notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), a safeguard intended to prevent unnecessary arrests in offences punishable up to seven years. They claimed the police lifted generic statutory language and pasted it into the “reasons for arrest” checklist-never explaining why Naik, in particular, needed to be taken into custody.
Court’s Observations
Inside the courtroom, the bench seemed visibly troubled by the pattern emerging from the case file. Justice Dangre observed that the checklist submitted to the Magistrate contained template-style reasons, identical to those used for other accused. “Arrest is an individualized act,” the Court stressed. “Reasons cannot be cloned.”
Referring to Supreme Court precedents like Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil, the judges warned that police officers cannot “tick boxes” to justify arrest. There must be a factual basis showing why that particular person poses a risk of evidence destruction, threat to witnesses, or flight.
“The bench observed, ‘When reasons are not individualized, the arrest becomes illegal. It reflects non-application of mind-not only by the police but also the Magistrate who authorizes detention.’”
The Court also noted that Naik had cooperated fully, had surrendered his devices, and was not accused of creating the deepfake video himself. The investigating officer had neither issued a notice seeking his appearance nor explained why such a notice would have been ineffective.
At one point, Justice Chandak remarked, almost in exasperation, that power to arrest is not a license to arrest. The courtroom fell silent for a moment-a reminder that judicial displeasure carries its own weight.
Decision
Concluding that Naik’s arrest violated constitutional safeguards and the mandatory requirements of Section 35 BNSS, the Court declared the arrest illegal. It directed that Naik be released immediately on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with sureties, emphasising that liberty cannot be curtailed on vague assumptions or mechanical paperwork.
With that, the hearing ended-leaving behind a judgment that is likely to become a key reference point in future arrest-related challenges.
Case Title: Chandrashekhar Bhimsen Naik vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Type: Criminal Writ Petition
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 5764 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 3 December 2025
