A metropolitan magistrate court in Bombay ordered the immediate release of music director Sachin Sanghvi (of Sachin-Jigar) on the day of his arrest in a sexual assault case, because of the negligence and lethargic conduct of the investigating police officer. The magistrate termed his arrest “illegal and invalid”. The court found that the Santacruz (Bombay) police failed to provide Sachin written grounds of arrest, as expressly mandated by the Supreme Court, thereby rendering the arrest procedurally defective.
The police had detained Sachin Sanghvi in connection with a non-cognisable complaint filed by a 29-year-old singer who accused him of sexual assault by employing deceitful means, outraging her modesty and giving her abortion pills without her knowledge when she became pregnant. She claimed that the music composer established physical relations with her under the false pretext of marriage and later coerced her into terminating a pregnancy.
According to the woman’s complaint, she came into contact with Sachin on Instagram, where he offered her a music project. She alleged that the music composer later developed a personal relationship with her, promising to marry her after divorcing his wife, and had physical relations with her on multiple occasions in Bombay, Budapest and Dubai between April 2024 and July 2025.
The police recorded her statement and registered an NCR. They took Sachin into custody and produced him before the court on October 23 before any legal opinion was sought to convert the complaint into an FIR. On the same date, the police informed his family about the arrest but failed to mention details of the case to the accused.
During the hearing, the police sought seven days of police custody for the music director, stating that “the offence is serious in nature and requires detailed investigation”.
Sachin’s counsel argued that the arrest itself was illegal as the police had not informed the accused about the grounds of arrest in writing. The magistrate perused the case diary, remand papers and notice issued under section 47(1)(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He observed that although the notice mentioned the crime number, section, and name of the informant, it did not specify the actual grounds of arrest. The investigating officer admitted that the grounds of arrest were communicated orally and not in writing. The magistrate noted that even the station diary entry failed to mention any written communication of grounds of arrest, thereby confirming the procedural lapse. The magistrate, therefore, termed the arrest “not legal and valid as per the guidelines of the hon’ble Supreme Court”. The magistrate further observed that while the investigating officer meticulously prepared the complainant’s written statement with signatures and section details, the same diligence was not applied to safeguarding the accused’s procedural rights. Accordingly, the court rejected the police’s plea for custody, and directed Sachin Sanghvi’s immediate release.
