Court dismisses accused's plea against arrest in gang rape case

PANAJI

The High Court of Bombay at Goa has dismissed a writ petition filed by an accused in a gang rape case, challenging the legality of his arrest on constitutional grounds.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Ashish Chavan held that Mohammad Shahzad Shaikh’s arrest did not violate Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which mandates that a person taken into custody must be informed of the grounds of arrest.

The petitioner, named as the third accused in the case registered at Fatorda Police Station, was arrested on January 24, 2025, in the alleged gang rape of a 25-year-old mentally unsound woman.

The FIR was based on a complaint filed by the victim’s mother, stating that her daughter was lured by one of the accused and taken to a guesthouse in Cansaulim, Goa, where five men sexually assaulted her. The statement of the victim was recorded on the same day and the accused persons were identified and arrested.

The police subsequently filed a charge sheet on March 22, 2025, for offences under Sections 138, 70(1), 64(1), 64(2)(k), and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Section 92 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.

In the writ petition, the petitioner alleged he had not been informed of the grounds of arrest. Hence, his arrest violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court, however, noted that at no stage during the remand proceedings or in his bail application -- rejected earlier by the Sessions Judge, South Goa, on June 18, 2025 -- did the petitioner raise this objection. The Bench also observed that there was no material placed on record to show any prejudice suffered by the petitioner due to the alleged non-communication.

“The petitioner was provided with the information of the offence sufficient enough to enable him to understand why he was arrested. We note that no document has been placed on record by the petitioner to demonstrate any prejudice caused to him and in fact it is an admitted position that the petitioner has not made a grievance about non-compliance of the grounds of arrest at the stage of remand and bail and has raised this issue for the first time in the present petition,” the order stated adding,

“We agree with the submissions of the learned Prosecutor on the aspect that at the time when the petitioner/accused was arrested, the investigation in the present case was at nascent stage and the limited purpose and extent of the grounds of arrest that were informed to the accused would have been at best of a preliminary nature, which would strike a balance between the constitutional safeguards of the accused, the right of the State to conduct an impartial investigation and most importantly the right of the victim of a heinous crime such as gang rape.”

The High Court concluded that there was no infraction of the petitioner’s fundamental rights while dismissing the writ petition.