ZEHAAN SUBHASISH DASversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                          4-BA-3468-2025

                                                         Navnath Waghmare




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

           CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3468 OF 2025
Zehaan Subhasish Das                                     …Applicant
      Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr.                        …Respondents

Mr. Ali Kaashif Khan Deshmukh, Snigdha Khandelwal, Farid
Shaikh, Abrar Burondkar for the Applicant.
Ms. Veera Shinde, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Tanay Mandot for the Respondent No.2
C.S. Ahire, P.I. Pantnagar Police Station, Mumbai.


                        CORAM:        R. M. JOSHI, J.

                        DATED:        18th APRIL, 2026
PC:-

1.       This application for regular bail has been filed in connection

with C.R. No.415 of 2025 registered with Pant nagar Police

Station, Mumbai for offence punishable under Sections 64 (2)(m)

of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and Sections

66(E) 67(A) of Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short “IT

Act”).

2.       It is the case of the prosecution that: Ms. XYZ, hereinafter

referred to as the First Informant/Respondent No.2, lodged report



                                 Page 1 of 10
                            18th APRIL, 2026
                                                       4-BA-3468-2025

                                                      Navnath Waghmare




to concerned Police Station. She filed a complaint on 16th March

2025 through an NGO detailing a series of distressing incidents

involving the Applicant. It is submitted that the First Informant

met the Applicant through the Tinder Dating Application in 2021,

after which they began communicating online and over the phone,

eventually becoming friends. The Respondent No.2 met the

Applicant for the first time on 28th December 2021 at McDonald's,

Shoppers Stop, Chembur West, Mumbai, followed by another

meeting on 9th January 2022 at Odeon Domino’s, where they

shared a meal. The First Informant frequently travelled to Delhi for

work, and in 2023, during a job interview trip, she stayed at the

Applicant’s residence at Building No. 02, Plot No. 06, near Mother

Dairy, Syed Ul Azad, Saket, New Delhi, for four days due to lack of

accommodation. During this stay, the Applicant forcibly engaged in

sexual intercourse with her despite her refusal.

3.    The First Informant and the Applicant continued to meet

intermittently. In August 2024, the First Informant visited

Applicant’s residence in Mumbai at 304 Leena Heritage, Grant

Road, where he was alone. Herein, the Applicant forcibly engaged




                              Page 2 of 10
                          18th APRIL, 2026
                                                         4-BA-3468-2025

                                                        Navnath Waghmare




in sexual intercourse and recorded the act on his mobile phone

without her permission.

4.    When the Applicant faced financial difficulties due to losses

in his hotel business, the First Informant provided him with Rs

25,000 monthly, totalling Rs. 2 lakh, and he took Rs 1 lakh loan in

her name from the Slice App, which he later repaid in stages. The

First Informant decided to end her relationship with the Applicant

and began working from home. On 3rd December 2024, the

Applicant sent her a false notice claiming she owed him Rs 3 lakh,

prompting her to briefly unblock and communicate with him.

5.    Upon her refusal to meet in Delhi, the Applicant threatened

to make the recorded photos and videos of their intercourse viral.

He subsequently sent these private materials to the mobile phones

of her mother, sister and her company's employee causing

significant defamation and distress to the First Informant.

6.    Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the First

Information Report itself indicates that this is a case of consensual

relationship between two adult persons. It is her submission that in

the facts of the case, after conclusion of the investigation, with

filing of chargesheet, applicant is not required to be kept in jail. It



                               Page 3 of 10
                           18th APRIL, 2026
                                                        4-BA-3468-2025

                                                       Navnath Waghmare




is further submitted that except in the alleged statement recorded

during the course of investigation, there is no evidence in order to

indicate that the applicant established forcible physical relationship

with the informant and took her obscene photosgraphs and videos

and published them. It is also argued that the arrest of applicant is

in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the

constitution, as the ground of arrest were not provided to the

applicant. On these among other contentions, bail is sought.

7.    Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 opposed the

application by pointing out the fact that the applicant, against will

of the informant, forcibly established a physical relationship with

her. It is his contention that the WhatsApp chats between applicant

and informant indicate so. In this regard, reference is made to the

WhatsApp chats filed along with affidavit-in-reply of the informant.

It is further argued that the applicant had sent email to the

informant confirming the fact that he had sent photos and videos

of their relationship to her family members. It is submitted that

this entire material does not indicate any consensual relationship

between applicant and informant. He has also made serious

grievances with regard to the manner in which the investigation




                              Page 4 of 10
                          18th APRIL, 2026
                                                       4-BA-3468-2025

                                                      Navnath Waghmare




has been carried out. On the previous date of hearing, he made

specific submission that        those statements were not recorded

indicating that they having received photos and videos of the

informant, the evidence in this regard was not seized. It is also

claimed that even mobile phone of the informant was not seized by

the Investigating Officer.

8.    Considering the said submissions, this Court found it fit to

seek explanation from the Investigating Officer. An affidavit came

to be filed by Police Inspector, Pantnagar, Police Station Mumbai.

Though it is claimed in the said affidavit that investigation has

been carried out in proper manner, the affidavit further shows that

the mobile phone of the informant was also not seized during the

investigation. The said seizure came to be done on 08.04.2026.

This therefore indicates that the investigation has not been done

here in this case in proper manner. This order therefore, needs to

be sent to the Superior Officer for appropriate consideration.

9.    Learned APP opposed the application by contending that this

cannot be considered to be the case of consensual relationship

between informant and applicant. It is submitted that the material

on record clearly shows the relationship being non- consensual




                                 Page 5 of 10
                             18th APRIL, 2026
                                                          4-BA-3468-2025

                                                         Navnath Waghmare




 and forcible in nature. It is further submitted that the applicant had

 complete knowledge of the grounds of arrest and hence though he

 was represented through the Lawyer before the remand Court as

 well as Sessions Court, no grievance in that regard has been made.

 It is contended that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

 Court Sri Darshan unless prejudice is shown to have been caused

 by the applicant, he is not entitled for bail.

10.     As far as the allegations in the First Information Report are

concerned, they are supported by material collected during the course

of investigation. There is an email sent by the applicant indicating

that he had sent photos and videos of informant in relationship to

the witnesses. The statements of witnesses lend further support to

the same. Apart from this, the WhatsApp Chat placed on record by

the informant indicates that the physical relationship between the

informant and the applicant was not consensual in nature. In the

light of the fact that there is no proper investigation carried out in

this case, the said indisputable material becomes relevant and

cannot be ignored. Thus, this Court finds no substance in the

contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that this is a

case of consensual sexual relationship between applicant and




                                  Page 6 of 10
                              18th APRIL, 2026
                                                           4-BA-3468-2025

                                                          Navnath Waghmare




informant. The manner in which the applicant has treated the

informant including act of sending her photos and videos to the

member of family and others indicate that this is not a case of love

affair but case of foisting of the sexual relationship on the informant.

  11.    In so far as the grievance now sought to be made with

  regard to the non-furnishing of the ground of arrest is concerned,

  it would be relevant to take note of the judgment of the Hon'ble

  Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan

  etc. Cr. Appeal Nos. 3528-3534 of 2025.



               20.1. Delay in furnishing the ground of arrest
               cannot by itself, constitute a valid ground for
               grant of bail.
               20.1.1. The learned counsel for the
               respondents- accused contended that the arrest
               was illegal as the ground of arrest were not
               furnished immediately in writing, thereby
               violation Article 22(1) of the Constitution and
               Section 50 Cr.P.C. (now Section 47 of the
               Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita). This
               submission, however, is devoid of merit.
               20.1.2.Article 22(1) of the Constitution
               mandates that "no person who is arrested shall
               be detained in custody without being informed,
               as soon as may be, of the grounds for such
               arrest, nor shall he be denied the right to
               consult, and to be defended by , a legal



                                 Page 7 of 10
                             18th APRIL, 2026
                                             4-BA-3468-2025

                                            Navnath Waghmare




practitioner of his choice". Similarly, Section
50(1) Cr.P.C. requires that "every police officer
or other person arresting any person without
warrant shall forthwith communicate to him
full particulars of the offence for which he is
arrested or other grounds for such arrest.
20.1.3 the Constitutional and statutory
framework thus mandates that the arrested
person must be informed of the grounds of
arrest - but neither provision prescribes a
specific form or insists upon written
communication in every case. Judicial
precedents have clarified that substantial
compliance with these requirements is
sufficient, unless demonstrable prejudice is
shown.
20.1.4. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana22 ,
it was reiterated that Article 22(1) is satisfied if
the accused is made aware of the arrest
grounds in substance, even if not conveyed in
writing. Similarly, in Kasireddy Upender Reddy
v. State of Andhra Pradesh23, it was observed
that when arrest is made pursuant a warrant,
reading out the warrant amounts to sufficient
compliance. Both these post-Pankaj Bansal
decisions clarify that written, individualised
grounds are not an inflexible requirements in
all circumstances.
20.1.5. While Section 50 Cr.P.C. is mandatory,
the consistent judicial approach has been to
adopt a prejudice-oriented test when examining
alleged procedural lapses. The mere absence of
written grounds does not ipso facto render the
arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable



                  Page 8 of 10
              18th APRIL, 2026
                                           4-BA-3468-2025

                                          Navnath Waghmare




prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to
defend.
20.1.6. The High Court, however, relied heavily
on the alleged procedural lapse as a
determinative factor while overlooking the
gravity of the offence under Section 302 IPC
and the existence of a prima facie case. it
noted, inter alia, that there was no mention in
the remand orders about service of memo of
grounds of arrest (para 45); the memos were
allegedly template -based and not personalised
(para 50); and eyewitnesses had not stated that
they were present at the time of arrest or had
signed the memos (para 48). Relying on Pankaj
Bansal v. Union of India24 and Prabir
Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra), it
concluded (paras 43, 49 -50) that from
03.10.2023 onwards, failure to serve detailed,
written, and individualised grounds of arrest
immediately after arrest was a violation
entitling the accused to bail.
20.1.7. In the present case, the arrest memos
and remand records clearly reflect that the
respondents were aware of the reasons for their
arrest. They were legally represented from the
outset and applied for bail shortly after arrest,
evidencing an immediate and informed
understanding of the accusations. No material
has been placed on record to established that
any prejudice was caused due to the
alleged procedural lapse. In the absence of
demonstrable prejudice, such as irregularity is,
at best, a curable defect and cannot, by itself,
warrant release on bail. As reiterated above,
the High Court treated it as a determinative



                 Page 9 of 10
             18th APRIL, 2026
                                                          4-BA-3468-2025

                                                         Navnath Waghmare




             factor while overlooking the gravity of the
             charge under Section 302 IPC and the existence
             of a prima facie case. Its reliance on Pankaj
             Bansal and Prabir Purkastha is misplaced, as
             those decisions turned on materially different
             facts and statutory contexts. The approach
             adopted here is inconsistent with the settled
             principle that procedural lapses in furnishing
             grounds of arrest, absent prejudice, do not ipso
             facto render custody illegal or entitle the
             accused to bail.


12.   In the light of the abovesaid observations, it could be said in

the instant case that the applicant was duly represented by            a

lawyer of his choice before the remand Court so also before the

Sessions Court and at no point of time any grievance was made

with regard to the non-providing of grounds of arrest furthermore

no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the applicant.

13.   Having regard to the serious nature of offence and in view of

the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri

Darshan (supra), this is not a fit case to grant bail.

14.   Hence, Application stands dismissed.




                                                     (R. M. JOSHI, J.)
                                                                         {




                              Page 10 of 10
                           18th APRIL, 2026