Naushad Ahmed Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Bombay High Court)
Summary: The Bombay High Court, in Naushad Ahmed Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr., Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 6057, 6074, 6084, 6089, 6108 and 6109 of 2025, decided on 25 November 2025, dismissed six writ petitions filed by the same accused challenging his arrest and subsequent remand orders in separate criminal cases registered with Ravet Police Station, Pimpri Chinchwad. The petitioner sought a declaration that his arrests were illegal and issuance of a writ of habeas corpus securing his release from judicial custody. The cases involved allegations under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The principal constitutional issue was whether the alleged failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Sections 50 and 50A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, thereby rendering the arrests and remand orders unlawful.
The High Court examined the facts primarily through Criminal Writ Petition No. 6057 of 2025, relating to C.R. No. 68 of 2024 registered on 17 February 2024. According to the complaint, the petitioner was the Director of Creative Academy, where the complainant had taken admission in 2019 for her higher secondary education. She alleged that the petitioner occupied a position of authority within the institution, developed close relationships with female students, exposed them to objectionable material, discussed sexual matters and engaged in inappropriate physical conduct. The complainant further alleged that between November 2020 and August 2021, the petitioner established physical relations with her on multiple occasions. The complaint resulted in registration of offences under Sections 354, 354-D, 376(2-D) and 376(2-N) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 to 12 of the POCSO Act. The victim reiterated the allegations in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. Five other FIRs involving different complainants and broadly similar allegations were registered in January and February 2024. These were allegations forming the basis of the prosecution, and the writ proceedings did not constitute a determination of guilt.
The petitioner contended that the grounds of arrest had not been communicated to him before his arrest or effectively conveyed to him or his relatives, and that neither the remand papers nor the charge-sheet established compliance with the constitutional safeguards. He further argued that because the FIR concerned offences against women and children, it had not been uploaded to the Maharashtra Police website, preventing him and his advocate from obtaining it before the first police custody remand. Relying upon Prabir Purkayastha Vs State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254, Vihaan Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Anr., (2025) 5 SCC 799, and Kasireddy Upender Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228, he submitted that the fundamental right to be informed of the grounds of arrest must be respected even in cases involving serious offences. According to him, non-compliance with this requirement vitiated the arrests and the subsequent remand orders.
The Court traced the earlier proceedings initiated by the petitioner. He had approached the Supreme Court directly, but on 28 July 2025 the petition was withdrawn with liberty to pursue the pending bail proceedings before the Bombay High Court. Subsequently, in Criminal Bail Application No. 4369 of 2024, the petitioner sought permission to raise the specific ground of illegal detention. The High Court permitted withdrawal of the bail application with liberty to approach the Special Court. The petitioner thereafter filed a fresh application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, before the Special POCSO Court, alleging non-compliance with Sections 50 and 50A CrPC and Article 22(1). The Special Court rejected the application, recording that the remand reports disclosed the nature of the accusations, the arrest memo and related records showed communication of the reasons for arrest, the petitioner had legal representation and no prejudice from the alleged procedural lapse had been established.
The prosecution opposed the petitions by emphasising the gravity of the accusations, the petitioner’s position as Director of the educational institution and the allegations involving multiple minor students. The High Court examined the remand records and noted that the petitioner had been arrested in connection with the cases, that the nature and circumstances of the alleged offences had been recorded, and that the petitioner had been assisted by an advocate during the remand proceedings. The record also showed that the information regarding arrest had been communicated to his son, that he was permitted to consult his legal adviser, and that copies of the remand reports and charge-sheet had been made available. The Court further noted that the earlier bail application had been rejected on merits after consideration of the prima facie material and the apprehension that the petitioner might influence witnesses or tamper with prosecution evidence if released.
On the legal issue, the High Court examined the decisions in Pankaj Bansal Vs Union of India & Ors., (2024) 7 SCC 576, and Prabir Purkayastha Vs State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254, concerning communication of grounds of arrest in writing. The prosecution highlighted the chronology of those decisions and the dates of the petitioner’s arrests. The Court observed that the arrests had commenced on 30 January 2024, before the judgment in Prabir Purkayastha dated 15 May 2024. It also considered the Supreme Court proceedings in Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs State of Maharashtra, relating to communication of arrest grounds. In the facts before it, the High Court found that the grounds of arrest had been communicated orally, the petitioner’s son had received intimation of the arrest, and the petitioner had been represented by counsel at the remand stage. It therefore concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated prejudice arising from the absence of written communication.
The High Court also relied upon State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs Kusum Sahu, Criminal Appeal No. 4710 of 2025, in which the Supreme Court had disapproved the use of habeas corpus proceedings to secure release after repeated bail rejections by effectively reconsidering the merits of the criminal case. The Court noted that the petitioner’s bail application had already been rejected on merits and that the subsequent proceedings were founded on the alleged illegality of arrest. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the prior judicial examination of the bail application, the oral communication of arrest grounds, the availability of legal assistance and the absence of demonstrated prejudice, the Division Bench held that the petitioner had failed to establish grounds for relief. Accordingly, all six criminal writ petitions were dismissed, the Rule was discharged, and no order as to costs was made.
Cases Discussed:
1. Pankaj Bansal Vs Union of India & Ors. (Supreme Court); Criminal Appeal Nos. 3051–3052 of 2023; 03/10/2023; 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244; (2024) 7 SCC 576. Referred to concerning the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing and the binding effect of constitutional interpretation. The High Court examined its applicability in light of the dates of the petitioner’s arrests and the subsequent decision in Prabir Purkayastha.
2. Prabir Purkayastha Vs State (NCT of Delhi) (Supreme Court); Criminal Appeal No. 2577 of 2024; 15/05/2024; 2024 INSC 414; (2024) 8 SCC 254. Relied upon by the petitioner for the mandatory communication of arrest grounds and the constitutional consequences of non-compliance. The High Court considered the timing of this decision in relation to the arrests under challenge.
3. Vihaan Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Anr. (Supreme Court); 07/02/2025; 2025 INSC 162; (2025) 5 SCC 799. Relied upon by the petitioner regarding the obligation to inform an arrested person of the grounds of arrest and the safeguards flowing from Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
4. Kasireddy Upender Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (Supreme Court); Criminal Appeal No. 2808 of 2025; 23/05/2025; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228; 2025 INSC 768. Cited by the petitioner in support of the contention that constitutional safeguards governing communication of arrest grounds must be observed irrespective of the seriousness of the alleged offence.
5. Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs State of Maharashtra (Supreme Court); SLP (Criminal) No. 17132 of 2024, as identified in the source judgment; subsequent judgment dated 06/11/2025, 2025 INSC 1288. Referred to in the context of the constitutional obligation to communicate grounds of arrest. The High Court recorded that the petitioner relied upon this recent Supreme Court pronouncement in the proceedings before the Special Court.
6. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs Kusum Sahu (Supreme Court); Criminal Appeal No. 4710 of 2025. Relied upon concerning the limits of habeas corpus proceedings where an accused has already sought bail and the bail applications have been rejected on merits. The Supreme Court disapproved the use of habeas corpus as a substitute for reconsideration of the merits of rejected bail applications. The precise judgment date is not stated in the supplied source.
