Sonakshi Sinha approached the cops after discovering morphed pictures of herself on social media platforms.
The Bandra police nabbed a Delhi guy.
A Mumbai court has now issued his release, stating breaches in protocol.
A Mumbai court has ordered the release of a Delhi resident arrested in connection with the circulation of objectionable morphed images of actor Sonakshi Sinha, snubbing a request by the Bandra Police for three days of custodial interrogation due to procedural lapses during the arrest.
The case originated after Sinha filed a formal police complaint upon discovering manipulated, explicit photographs of herself being shared across social media platforms.
Why Did Mumbai Court Dismiss Custody Plea?
Acting on her complaint, the Bandra Police registered an FIR and launched an investigation that led them to Delhi, where they apprehended Aryan Deepak Jain. According to case records, Jain was apprehended around 10:11 AM from the Jagatpuri Police Station jurisdiction in Delhi’s Shahdara district before being flown directly to Mumbai.
Upon arriving in the city, investigators produced Jain before a local magistrate and sought three days of police remand, arguing that custodial interrogation was essential to recover the electronic device or medium allegedly used to fabricate and distribute the morphed nude images, as well as to advance the broader probe.
However, the magistrate declined the remand plea after flagging a critical breach of arrest protocol. The court noted that investigators had bypassed mandatory legal procedure by failing to present Jain before the nearest magistrate in Delhi prior to transporting him across state lines into the Bandra court’s jurisdiction.
"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," the court observed as reported by India Today. The bench added that the investigating officers had lent no convincing justification for skipping this statutory requirement.
During the hearing, Jain’s legal team, comprising advocates Aman Shahi, Prashant Trivedi, and Aditya Jain, mounted a strong challenge against the police's custody demand, contending that the arrest flouted fundamental legal safeguards. The defence submitted that authorities had neither issued the mandatory prior notice nor formally informed Jain of the grounds for his arrest before flying him out of Delhi's territorial limits.
Furthermore, the defence counsel alleged that the police had acted with unusual haste solely owing to the high-profile status of the complainant. Asserting his innocence, Jain maintained that he had committed no wrongdoing and argued that the statutory provisions invoked against him did not prima facie apply to the case. Addressing the arguments surrounding arrest protocols and mandatory notices, the magistrate also underlined that the offences cited carried a maximum punishment of up to seven years in prison.
