Arrest begins at interception in LOC cases: Bombay High Court frees Singapore national

The Bombay High Court recently passed a significant ruling concerning the timing of arrests when it's made in pursuance of a Look Out Circular (LOC) [Hem Prabhakar Shah v. State of Maharashtra]. .A Division Bench of the Court held that in cases where an arrest is made subsequent to the issuance of LOCs, the time of arrest begins from the moment of interception, and not when the person is formally handed over to the jurisdictional police..A Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande was hearing the habeas corpus petition filed for the release of a Singapore national, Hem Prabhakar Shah, who was detained at the Ahmedabad airport on account of an LoC issued by Azad Nagar police station, Mumbai..The individual in question was a Singapore national who faced a criminal case registered at the Azad Maidan Police Station in India due to transactions involving an Indian and an Indonesian party in 2019. Although a summary report had been submitted to the court regarding this matter, he was unaware of these legal proceedings. He arrived at Ahmedabad Airport on a visit to meet family in India. On August 13, 2024, he was intercepted and initially detained at the SVPI Airport Police Station before being transferred to the Azad Maidan Police Station in Mumbai. Despite his detention (at the airport) beginning on August 13, he was not officially recorded as being arrested until 11.08 PM. on August 14. His first appearance before a magistrate was on August 15, 2024..Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda, representing Shah, argued that the entire process was marred by significant procedural lapses. From the moment Shah was intercepted at 10 PM on August 13, he was effectively in custody.The fact that he was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours constitutes a clear violation of his constitutional rights under Article 22 (protection against arrest and detention) of the Constitution, Ponda argued. He further emphasised that Shah was not properly informed of the grounds for his arrest, which is mandated by Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).In response, the State argued that Shah's initial detention was merely for verification purposes and not an official arrest. The detention from 10 PM on August 13 until 3 PM on August 14 was part of the procedural process to confirm his identity and complete necessary formalities, the State’s affidavit stated. The formal arrest was made only after these steps were completed, and Shah was produced before the magistrate within the legally required 24 hours, the State maintained..The Court, however, rejected this justification. It concluded that Shah's detention from the moment of his interception amounted to an illegal arrest due to the failure to adhere to constitutional and procedural requirements. The Court clarified that the term "arrest" encompasses any situation where an individual is restrained by authorities in a manner that limits their freedom of movement, regardless of the official recording or formal procedures that follow.In its September 5 order, the Court observed, “The aforesaid discussion with reference to the authoritative pronouncements on the point of ‘Arrest’, lead us to an inference that the custody of the petitioner right from his interception at 10:00 p.m. on 13/08/2024, at Ahmedabad Airport, amounts to his arrest, which, being non-compliant with the Constitutional safeguards guaranteed under Article 22(1) and (2) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure make his arrest illegal being violative of his fundamental rights.” It noted that an arrest effectively begins when an individual is first restrained by authorities, and not merely when the formal arrest process is recorded or completed..The Court, therefore declared Shah's arrest to be illegal and ordered his release, although it declined to stay the investigation against him. .Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda, with Advocates Kushal Mor, Manavendra Mishra, Akhilesh Singh, Adithi Rao, Marmik Shah, Tanmay K of Khaitan & Co. represented Hem Prabhakar Shah.Additional Public Prosecutor JP Yagni appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]