Mumbai court releases man arrested over Sonakshi Sinha's morphed photos
What's the story
A Mumbai court on Saturday ordered the release of a man arrested in connection with the circulation of morphed nude photographs of actor Sonakshi Sinha. The accused, Aryan Deepak Jain, was apprehended in Delhi and brought to Mumbai for a hearing. However, the court found his arrest illegal as proper procedures were not followed by the police during his transfer from Delhi to Mumbai, reported India Today.
Case details
What is the case about?
The case was registered at Mumbai's Bandra police station after Sinha lodged a complaint against the circulation of her morphed photographs on social media by a Delhi-based accused.
The police identified Jain as the suspect and arrested him from Jagatpuri Police Station in Delhi's Shahdara area on Saturday morning.
He was then brought to Mumbai and produced before a magistrate at Bandra court.
Legal proceedings
Court highlights lapse in arrest
During the hearing, the magistrate highlighted that Jain was not produced before the nearest magistrate in Delhi before being brought to Bandra court.
The court reportedly said, "Thus, it appears that the police have directly brought the accused from Delhi before this Court without following the procedure of production before the nearest Magistrate."
It also noted that there was no satisfactory explanation provided by the investigating agency for this lapse.
Custody dispute
Bandra police sought custody of accused
The Bandra police had requested three days of custody of Jain to trace the electronic device used to create the morphed photographs and conduct further investigation.
However, Jain's lawyers opposed this, arguing that his arrest violated mandatory legal safeguards.
They claimed he was taken out of Delhi's jurisdiction and brought to Mumbai by flight without being produced before a local magistrate.
Judicial remarks
'Need for further investigation alone can't just justify arrest'
The magistrate stressed that the need for further investigation alone couldn't justify an arrest or detention without adherence to prescribed legal safeguards.
"The mere requirement of further investigation cannot, by itself, justify arrest and detention without following the statutory safeguards," the court reportedly observed.
The accused maintained his innocence, stating that the sections invoked in the case were not prima facie applicable to the facts.