The Bombay High Court has criticized the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for what it deemed as an arbitrary and unjust arrest of Chanda Kochhar, the former Managing Director and CEO of ICICI Bank, along with her husband Deepak Kochhar in connection with a loan fraud case. The court asserted that the arrest lacked proper consideration of legal principles and amounted to an abuse of power.

On February 6, a division bench comprising Justices Anuja Prabhudessai and N R Borkar declared the arrest of the Kochhars as unlawful. They upheld an interim order passed in January 2023 by another bench, which granted bail to the Kochhars.

In the order released on Monday, the court highlighted that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) failed to provide evidence or supportive material justifying the decision to arrest the Kochhars. The court emphasized that the lack of such circumstances renders the arrest invalid and illegal.

Additionally, the court dismissed the probe agency's argument that the Kochhars' arrest was justified due to their alleged lack of cooperation with the investigation. It affirmed that the accused have the right to remain silent during interrogation, and exercising this right cannot be construed as a basis for their arrest.

In the order, the court emphasized that the right to silence stems from Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, which grants an accused individual protection against self-incrimination. It explicitly stated that choosing to remain silent cannot be equated with non-cooperation.

The CBI detained the couple on December 23, 2022, concerning the Videocon-ICICI Bank loan case. Shortly after their arrest, the Kochhars promptly approached the high court, contesting the legality of their detention. They petitioned for their release on bail through an interim order, challenging the validity of their arrest.

In an interim order issued on January 9, 2023, the court granted bail to the Kochhars, highlighting that the CBI's arrest was conducted casually and mechanically, lacking proper consideration. In the subsequent order dated February 6, the bench observed that Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was implemented to prevent arbitrary arrests.

The court referenced that Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) limits the authority to arrest when an accused individual adheres to the notice issued by the police to attend questioning. It stipulates that an arrest should only occur when the police deem it necessary. The court asserted that although the investigating agency has the prerogative to interrogate an accused and form a subjective opinion on the matter, such decisions are not entirely exempt from judicial scrutiny.

"Despite the gravity of the offence, the petitioners (Kochhars) were not interrogated or summoned for a period of over three years from the date of registration of the crime," it said.