Bombay HC Seeks State Response On Habeas Corpus Plea of Nepali Citizen Alleging Illegal Detention

The Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra government to file an affidavit in response to a habeas corpus petition alleging that a Nepali citizen was unlawfully detained at Sakinaka Police Station for more than 24 hours in violation of constitutional and statutory safeguards. The Court has also ordered the preservation of CCTV footage from the police station to enable independent verification of the petitioner’s claims.

A division bench comprising Justice Sarang V. Kotwal and Justice Shyam C. Chandak, while hearing the plea on September 15, 2025, noted the petitioner’s allegation that the arrest records had been manipulated to conceal the actual time of custody. The bench observed, “It is a case of the Petitioner that the police have manipulated the date and time of arrest. In fact, he was taken in custody between the night of 19th April 2025 and 20th April 2025 which would be clear from the CCTV footage of the police station.”

The petition was moved by Dhanshala Prakash Vishwakarma, who contended that her husband was detained during the intervening night of April 19-20, 2025.

However, she alleged that the official records of arrest were altered to suggest a later arrest, thereby concealing the fact that he had been kept in custody beyond the permissible period of 24 hours without being presented before a magistrate.

Her counsel, Advocate Shirish Desai, argued that such discrepancies could only be clarified by examining CCTV footage from the police station, which would reflect the true time of detention.

The plea emphasized that irrespective of the offences invoked, the right of an arrested person to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours was a fundamental safeguard under Article 22 of the Constitution and Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Both provisions prohibit prolonged detention without judicial oversight, and violation of this requirement renders the custody unlawful. The petitioner argued that the alleged manipulation of arrest records was not a mere procedural lapse but a serious infringement of personal liberty.

The detainee is currently facing charges under Sections 64(2)(k) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. According to the petitioner, the legality of the offences is not the subject of the habeas corpus proceedings. Instead, the central grievance is that even when offences are registered, the State cannot disregard the fundamental rights guaranteed to individuals in custody.

The petition urged the Court to intervene and ensure accountability by requiring the State to disclose the true sequence of events surrounding the arrest.

During the hearing, Additional Public Prosecutor Dhanalaxmi Krishnaiyar appeared on behalf of the State. API Vijaykumar Wagh from Sakinaka Police Station was also present before the Court.

The division bench directed the APP to file a detailed affidavit responding to the petitioner's allegations and submissions.

The Court specifically required that the affidavit address the claims of record manipulation and discrepancies relating to the timing of the arrest.

Further, the authorities were directed to preserve CCTV footage from the relevant period to ensure that the allegations could be independently assessed.

The Court's directions highlight the judicial insistence on adherence to procedural safeguards in matters of personal liberty. Habeas corpus petitions, which directly address unlawful detention, require courts to examine not only the existence of an arrest but also whether statutory and constitutional requirements have been complied with.

By ordering preservation of electronic records such as CCTV footage, the Court has sought to safeguard material evidence that could otherwise be lost with time.

The matter will now be heard again on October 1, 2025, when the affidavit of the State and the preserved CCTV records are expected to be placed on record.

Case Title: Dhanshala Prakash Vishwakarma v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Bench: Justice Sarang V. Kotwal and Justice Shyam C. Chandak

Date of Order: September 15, 2025