The Bombay High Court has set aside a Sessions Court order declaring the arrest of three accused who were Senior CGST Officers namely Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Narinder Rajput, and Vinay Kumar Kantheti illegal in an alleged ₹40 lakh CGST bribery case, holding that Section 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, does not require information about an arrest to be communicated to the accused’s relatives in writing.
The bench of Justice Shivkumar Dige observed that the constitutional requirement is to effectively communicate the grounds of arrest to the arrested person. Article 22(1) of the Constitution does not prescribe any particular format in which those grounds must be supplied.
Also Read: SENIOR CGST OFFICERS ALLEGEDLY INVOLVED IN RS. 40 LAKH BRIBERY CASE GRANTED BAIL
The Court consequently remanded the three accused—including a CGST Superintendent and an Additional Commissioner of CGST—to two days’ CBI custody.
The Central Bureau of Investigation’s Anti-Corruption Branch in Mumbai registered an FIR under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act on complaints made by Bhalchandra Thorve and Kalpesh Thorve.
BUY NOW: E-Magazine: 1000+ Landmark GST Judgments (2017–2026)
According to the prosecution, CGST Superintendent Rakesh Kumar Sinha allegedly demanded ₹1.5 crore from the complainants’ firm in connection with pending proceedings. The alleged demand was subsequently reduced to ₹40 lakh.
The CBI claimed that the money was demanded for settling a royalty-related issue concerning the complainants’ company and for extending favours in the future.
A trap was laid on August 27, 2026. Narinder Rajput was allegedly caught accepting ₹40 lakh on behalf of the CGST Superintendent. The money was reportedly recovered from the back of Rajput’s car.
The agency further alleged that a search of Rajput’s residence resulted in the recovery of an additional ₹34 lakh in cash.
During the investigation, the CBI allegedly found that Additional Commissioner of CGST Vinay Kumar Kantheti was continuously in contact with Rajput through FaceTime calls. The prosecution alleged that the bribe money was intended to be shared with Kantheti and other senior officers.
The In-Charge Additional Sessions Judge at Thane had held that the arrests were illegal and rejected the CBI’s request for custodial interrogation.
Among other reasons, the Sessions Court noted that the grounds of arrest had not been communicated to the accused persons’ relatives in writing. It also raised objections to the manner in which the case diary was maintained, observing that the papers were loosely arranged and tied together with a tag.
The Sessions Court further found that the arrest memoranda were prepared in a typed, prescribed format. It questioned whether the authorities had verified that the accused understood the reasons and grounds for their arrest.
It also reasoned that the alleged bribe money and the accused persons’ mobile phones had already been seized and that no satisfactory justification for further custodial interrogation had been shown.
The accused were consequently released on bail without being placed in CBI custody.
The CBI challenged the Sessions Court’s decision through a criminal revision application.
Appearing for the agency, the Additional Solicitor General argued that both the reasons and grounds of arrest had been communicated to all three accused in a language understood by them and in the presence of independent witnesses.
The accused had signed their respective arrest memoranda, and their family members had been immediately informed, the CBI submitted.
The agency contended that the Sessions Court failed to properly consider the seriousness of the allegations, the alleged recovery of ₹40 lakh during the trap and the further recovery of ₹34 lakh from Rajput’s residence.
It was also argued that conversations concerning the alleged demand had been recorded on a digital video recorder in the presence of panch witnesses.
The High Court examined the call details and events following the arrests.
In the case of the CGST Superintendent, the record indicated that the trap-laying officer spoke to his wife and daughter. The accused was also permitted to separately speak to them using the officer’s mobile phone.
His lawyer contacted the trap-laying officer in the early hours of August 28, 2026, seeking information about the arrest and the court where the accused would be produced.
The High Court observed that these communications showed that the accused’s family members were aware of the arrest and remained in contact with the investigating officer.
Regarding Rajput, the record showed that he was arrested at approximately 11.40 pm on August 27, 2026. His family members met him at about 2 am the next day and were informed of his arrest. His vehicle was subsequently handed over to his son.
Rajput had signed the memorandum of arrest in English and did not dispute either his signature or receipt of the document. His primary objection was that the arrest memorandum had been prepared in a pre-typed format.
Rejecting that objection, the High Court held that Article 22(1) mandates communication of the grounds of arrest but does not prescribe a particular format for doing so.
The Court noted that Rajput had signed the arrest memorandum as acknowledgment of receipt. His son met him after the arrest and took possession of his vehicle, while CCTV footage and photographs also supported the prosecution’s account regarding contact with his family.
The use of a pre-typed or identical form, the Court held, would not by itself invalidate an arrest when the individual details relating to each accused had been duly entered and the grounds had been effectively communicated.
The Court also examined the events surrounding Kantheti’s arrest.
The record showed that he was arrested at 5.15 am on August 28, 2026. At 5.45 am, the trap-laying officer called his wife, who was in Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh, and informed her about the arrest. Kantheti was also allowed to speak to her.
His advocate subsequently contacted the trap-laying officer and spoke with the accused. Further calls were exchanged regarding the timing and court where Kantheti would be produced.
The High Court noted inconsistencies between two affidavits filed by Kantheti. In the first affidavit, he reportedly stated that the grounds of arrest were communicated a day after the actual arrest. In the additional affidavit, he claimed that written grounds were supplied only an hour before his production before the court.
However, the arrest memorandum bearing his signature showed that the reasons and grounds of arrest had been communicated to him.
The Court described these contradictory stands as an afterthought. It also rejected as “ridiculous” the contention that the lengthy telephone conversation with his wife after arrest concerned only his well-being, children and routine family matters.
According to the Court, the accused appeared to be withholding the true facts to avoid custodial interrogation.
The accused argued that oral information to their relatives did not satisfy Section 48 of the BNSS and that the information should have been supplied in writing.
Section 48 requires an arresting officer to immediately inform a relative, friend or another nominated person about the arrest and the place where the arrested individual is being detained. It also requires the police to inform the arrested person of this right and maintain an entry recording who was notified.
The High Court, however, found that the provision does not mandate that such information must be given to the relative in writing.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions concerning communication of arrest grounds and procedural irregularities, the Court stated that the mode of communication must effectively enable the arrested person to obtain legal assistance, oppose remand and exercise the safeguards available under law.
The Court further observed that an alleged procedural lapse must be tested by examining whether it caused demonstrable prejudice or deprived the accused of a fair opportunity to defend themselves.
In the present case, the accused remained in contact with their families and lawyers and were properly represented before the Sessions Court. Therefore, no prejudice was shown merely because the information given to the relatives was not in writing.
The High Court termed the Sessions Court’s observations concerning the case diary “perverse.”
It held that the mere fact that the case diary consisted of loose papers could not be used at the initial stage to suspect the prosecution’s case. The diary produced before the High Court was properly maintained and paginated.
The Court also clarified that although the accused were apprehended from different locations, the formal arrest procedures were completed at the government guest house in Panvel. This fact, it said, was not properly considered by the Sessions Judge.
The use of identical arrest forms did not invalidate the arrests because the respective personal and arrest-related details had been separately filled in for each accused.
The High Court disagreed with the Sessions Court’s conclusion that custodial interrogation was unnecessary because the alleged bribe amount and mobile phones had already been seized.
Considering the nature of the alleged conspiracy, the involvement attributed to senior officials and the claim that the money was to be distributed among other officers, the Court found custodial interrogation necessary.
It also pointed out that the Sessions Judge referred to “further” custodial interrogation even though no police custody had previously been granted.
This showed that the impugned decision had been passed mechanically, without proper application of mind or consideration of the record, the High Court said.
The accused contended that the CBI ought to have filed an application seeking cancellation of bail instead of a revision petition.
Rejecting the objection, the High Court noted that the agency’s request for custodial interrogation had been denied and the accused were released on bail without ever being placed in CBI custody.
Accordingly, a revision application seeking custody was held to be a proper and maintainable remedy.
The High Court allowed the CBI’s revision, quashed the Sessions Court order dated August 28, 2026, and remanded all three accused to two days’ CBI custody. The investigating officer was directed to produce them before the Sessions Court upon expiry of the custody period.
The accused officers were represented by Dr. Sujay Kantawala along with Mr. Pradeep CS, Mr. Rahul Agarwal, Ms. Jasmin Purani, Mr. Harsh P. Shah, Mr. Akshay Raj B.R., Ms. Aishwarya Kantawala , Ms. Ayushi Jha and Ms. Jeffry Caleb i/b. Rahul Agarwal Associates.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
Read More: Slack Subscription Fees Not ‘Royalty’; No Tax in India Without PE: ITAT
