Bombay High Court Orders Release Of Mumbai Builder Arrested By Tardeo Police
On Tuesday, the Bombay High Court declared the arrest of a prominent city builder by the Tardeo police in a rape case illegal and ordered his immediate release from jail. Justice Shyam C Chandak ruled that the arrest was invalid because the police failed to furnish the grounds of arrest to the accused, violating constitutional safeguards.
Justice Chandak struck down the subsequent remand orders issued by a magisterial court. The court noted that failing to provide written grounds of arrest is impermissible in law as it goes against the safeguards provided to protect the constitutional rights of a person arrested by the police without a warrant.
The Tardeo police had registered an First Information Report (FIR) against the builder and arrested him on May 21, 2026, following a complaint lodged by a female relative. The complainant stated that she shared cordial relations with the builder.
According to the complaint, the builder allegedly filmed the woman while she was under the influence of alcohol during a joint family trip to London in August 2024. She alleged that the builder used the photographs to blackmail her, coerce her into a physical relationship, and sexually exploit her.
The woman further alleged that in May 2026, the builder demanded ₹50 lakh from her while continuing his blackmail. This prompted her to gather courage and approach the Tardeo police, leading to the registration of the FIR and the builder's arrest on the same day.
The builder subsequently approached the High Court to challenge his detention. His counsel, senior advocate Abad Ponda, argued that no brief details of the prosecution's case or the allegations were provided to the petitioner at the time of his custody, making the arrest illegal.
Additional Public Prosecutor Sangeeta Shinde opposed the builder's plea, arguing that the accused was informed of the allegations when he was called to the police station. Shinde also argued that the builder did not object during his first remand hearing and failed to show how the lack of written grounds caused him serious prejudice.
However, the High Court accepted the arguments presented by the builder's counsel. After finding that the grounds of arrest were indeed not communicated to the builder before he was taken into custody, the court ordered his immediate release.
