The Bombay High Court recently ruled that the arrest of a man accused of raping a woman after allegedly pretending to be single on a matrimonial website was illegal.

A division bench consisting of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande was hearing a petition filed by Faisal Ashraf Tole. He challenged his arrest, claiming it violated his fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution.

The complainant stated that she was introduced to the petitioner through a matrimonial website, believing he was unmarried. She alleged that, under the pretext of marriage, he had non-consensual sexual intercourse with her. In addition, it was claimed that he had also spent Rs. 1,84,000 from her credit card. As a result, Faisal was booked under Sections 376 (rape) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code.

The complainant opposed the writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the petitioner had bypassed the legal process by filing a bail application with the High Court after his requests for bail were rejected by the Sessions Court.

The prosecutor countered that the petitioner had been informed of the grounds for his arrest and denied any violation of his fundamental rights or Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).

Referring to the Supreme Court's guidelines, the bench clarified the distinction between the 'reasons for arrest' and 'grounds for arrest.' It explained that 'reasons for arrest' are formal parameters, while 'grounds for arrest' include detailed information that justifies the arrest, which must be provided by the investigating officer.

Accordingly, the bench proceeded to release the petitioner while noting that “if the arrest and remands are declared to be illegal, there is no reason why the petitioner should continue to be in custody, even though in Magisterial custody, and therefore, the relief is prayed for declaring his detention to be illegal, by issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus, for his release, which is now declared as illegal since the arrest is effected in flagrant violation of the fundamental right as well as in utter contrast to the requirement under Section 50 of Cr.P.C,” the order states.

Case title: Faisal Ashraf Tole vs State of Maharashtra