Police Entering Woman's Bedroom Without Lady Constable Violates Privacy : Bombay High Court Declares Mobile Seizure Illegal

Holding that police officers cannot ride roughshod over statutory safeguards in the name of investigation, the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) has ruled that police entering a woman's bedroom at night without a lady constable and seizing her mobile phone without following the procedure prescribed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) amounted to a violation of her right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution

A division bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nivedita Mehta noted that section 185 mandates an investigating officer to record in writing, in the case-diary, as to why the search is necessary, also to record (both audio and video) the entire search etc. 

"The right to privacy has now been recognised as an inseparable facet of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Entry into the residential premises of a citizen, more particularly into the bedroom occupied by a woman, without adherence to the statutory safeguards and the forcible seizure of her mobile phone without following the procedure prescribed under the BNSS, constitute a serious invasion of the petitioner's privacy and dignity," the bench in an order passed on July 3. 

The explanation offered by the errant cops that the search was undertaken in connection with an ongoing investigation, the judges said, cannot justify a departure from the mandatory safeguards enacted by the legislature.

"The investigating agency is expected to act strictly within the bounds of law, and the object of investigation cannot legitimise an otherwise illegal search or seizure. The allegation that the police personnel entered the bedroom of petitioner No.1 and forcibly took possession of her mobile phone, in the absence of a lady police constable and without adhering to the statutory procedure, constitutes a serious intrusion into her privacy. The right to privacy, being an integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot be infringed except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The procedural requirements enacted by the legislature are intended to ensure fairness, accountability and transparency in the investigative process, and cannot be dispensed with on the mere plea of investigation," the bench opined. 

The judges passed the order on a plea filed by one Khushbu Khan (26) highlighting the manner in which the police officers from Khapa Police Station, entered her house at 11:30 PM under the guise of searching her premises in a case related to a motor vehicle accident. She alleged that no woman officer was present when the police entered into her bedroom and forcible seized her mobile phone. She alleged that the police did not possess any 'search warrant' at the relevant time. 

Having considered the material on record, the judges opined that besides non-adherence to section 185 of the BNSS, the police also failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements under section 105 of the BNSS, which mandates that whenever a property is seized, a seizure memo is to be prepared in presence of independent witnesses and also furnishing an acknowledgment to the person, from whose possession the property is seized. 

"The statutory safeguards are intended to preserve the sanctity of the investigation and to protect citizens against arbitrary deprivation of their property," the bench observed while holding the mobile seizure to be illegal. 

Further, the bench opined that the petitioner woman was entitled to monetary compensation and therefore, ordered the State to pay an amount of Rs 10,000 to her. 

"We are of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to compensation in exercise of the public law jurisdiction of this Court. Although monetary compensation cannot fully redress the invasion of privacy and dignity suffered by petitioner No.1, it would provide some measure of solace for the violation of her constitutional rights and would also serve as a reminder that investigative powers must be exercised strictly in accordance with law and not arbitrarily," the bench held. 

With these observations, the bench disposed of he plea. 

Appearance: 

Advocate SI Ghatte appeared for the Petitioners.

Additional Public Prosecutor PC Bawankule represented the State. 

Case Title: Khushbu Iddrish Khan vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition 128 of 2026)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 329

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment