The Bombay High Court recently issued a crucial ruling regarding the timing of arrests made pursuant to a Look Out Circular (LOC) [Hem Prabhakar Shah v. State of Maharashtra].
A Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande ruled that when an arrest follows the issuance of an LOC, the arrest is considered to have commenced from the moment the person is intercepted, not when they are formally handed over to the jurisdictional police.
The ruling came in response to a habeas corpus petition filed for the release of Hem Prabhakar Shah, a Singaporean national detained at Ahmedabad Airport due to an LOC issued by the Azad Nagar Police Station in Mumbai.
Shah was involved in a criminal case registered at Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai, related to a transaction between an Indian and an Indonesian party in 2019. Although a summary report had been submitted to the court, Shah was unaware of the legal proceedings.
Shah arrived in India on August 13, 2024, to visit family but was intercepted at the Ahmedabad airport and detained at the SVPI Airport Police Station. He was later transferred to the Azad Maidan Police Station in Mumbai.
Despite being detained on August 13, Shah’s arrest was not officially recorded until 11:08 PM on August 14, and he was brought before a magistrate on August 15, 2024.
Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda, representing Shah, argued that this process involved significant procedural lapses. From the moment Shah was intercepted at 10:00 PM on August 13, he was effectively in custody. His failure to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours was a violation of his constitutional rights under Article 22 (protection against arrest and detention).
Ponda also emphasized that Shah was not properly informed of the grounds for his arrest, as required by Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The State contended that Shah’s initial detention was merely for verification purposes and not an official arrest. The detention period was used to confirm his identity and complete formalities, with the formal arrest occurring afterward. The State maintained that Shah was produced before a magistrate within the legally required 24-hour window following his official arrest.
However, the Court rejected this argument, concluding that Shah’s detention from the moment of his interception amounted to an illegal arrest due to the failure to comply with constitutional and procedural safeguards.
In its September 5 order, the Court clarified that “arrest” encompasses any situation where an individual is restrained in a way that limits their freedom, regardless of when formal procedures are completed.
The Court declared Shah’s arrest illegal and ordered his release, though it did not halt the ongoing investigation against him.
Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda, along with Advocates Kushal Mor, Manavendra Mishra, Akhilesh Singh, Adithi Rao, Marmik Shah, and Tanmay K of Khaitan & Co., represented Hem Prabhakar Shah. Additional Public Prosecutor JP Yagni appeared for the State.
