The Bombay High Court circuit bench of Kolhapur has ruled Rahul Landge’s (Petitioner) arrest as illegal and unconstitutional. The bench of Justice M.S. Karnik and Justice Sharmila Deshmukh further directed his immediate release from custody.

The present Writ Petition was filed against the First Information Report (F.I.R.) lodged by Minakshi Gund (Petitioner’s mother-in-law) for the offenses under Sections 74, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (B.N.S.). The Petitioner complied with the notice issued under Section 35(3) BNSS by appearing before the Investigating Officer and later was released on PR bond.

Subsequently, on 27th August 2025, the petitioner lodged a complaint against his in-laws, which came to be registered as C.R. No. 939/2025. On the very same day, he was called to the Police Station for rectification of his online complaint, and it was at this juncture that he was arrested at 20:57 hours.

At the outset the Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the complaint filed by the mother-in-law is a clear outcome of marital discord that his wife has with the Petitioner and thus, the arrest of the Petitioner was not only unnecessary and illegal but was also actuated with an ulterior motive to harass and exploit him. Furthermore, the key contention was raised that no grounds of arrest were furnished to him as required in terms of the already well-established law laid down by the Supreme Court.

Per Contrary, the Counsel for the State submitted that the Petitioner was informed about the grounds of arrest on 27th August, 2025 itself. The grounds of arrest record that the Petitioner’s name finds place in the FIR and that the Petitioner’s involvement in the offense is established.

At the outset, the bench emphasized the distinction between “reasons for arrest” and “grounds of arrest” by referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC 254. The bench reiterated that the object of informing in writing the grounds of arrest is to convey to the accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail.

Thus, applying the same in the present situation, the bench pointed out that the grounds of arrest only record that the petitioner’s name finds place in the FIR and that Petitioner involvement in the offence is established, which is not sufficient.

The bench observed that “In our opinion, the grounds of arrest informed in the present case are not sufficient to convey to the Petitioner all basic facts on which he was arrested. Thus there is no proper opportunity provided for defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail. The Respondents have informed the Petitioner reasons for the arrest which are generic in nature.”

Ultimately, after due consideration the Court quashed and set aside all the remand orders and directed the immediate release of Mr. Langde.

Case Title: Rahul Daaji Landge v The State of Maharashtra & Anr.,Writ Petition No. 4415 Of 2025

Advocates for Petitioner: Mr. Ritesh Thobde, Adv. Darshan Singh Rajpurohit & Adv. Changder Shingade

Advocate for Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Deokar, APP