CASE NUMBER
WP Crl. No. 9/1994
EQUIVALENT CITATION
1994 AIR 1349, 1994 SCC (4) 260
BENCH
M.N.VENKATACHALLIAH (CJ), S. MOHAN (J), A.S. ANAND (J)
DECIDED ON
25 April 1994
GUIDELINES FOR ARREST
FACTS
The petitioner, a 28-year-old guy who was registered as an advocate.
In order to inquire about a case, the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) of Ghaziabad called the petitioner to his office.
The petitioner personally appeared with his brothers Shri Mangeram Choudhary, Nahar Singh Yadav, Harinder Singh Tewatia, and Amar Singh on January 7, 1994, at around 10 o’clock.
SSP continued to have custody of the petitioner.
The petitioner’s brother inquired about the petitioner, but he was misinformed and told that the petitioner will be freed that evening after looking into a matter.
The petitioner’s brother wrote a telegram to the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh on January 7, 1994, at 12:55 p.m., expressing alarm over his brother’s imprisonment in connection with a criminal matter and further implying that the petitioner had been killed in a staged encounter.
On the evening of January 7, 1994, word spread that the petitioner was being held against his will by the SHO of Mussoorie.
The petitioner was kept in jail to do additional research in a case on January 8, 1994, according to the information provided. The petitioner has not yet been brought before the relevant Magistrate. Instead, the SHO of Mussoorie instructed the petitioner’s family to speak with the SSP of Ghaziabad for the petitioner’s release.
When the petitioner’s brother and a few other family members visited the Mussoorie Police Station that evening on January 9 to inquire about the welfare of their brother, they learned that the petitioner had been brought to an unspecified location.
The police claimed that because the advocate was collaborating with them in a case involving kidnapping, he had been released and there was no reason to keep him in custody.
ISSUE(S)
When and on what grounds can an arrest be made?
JUDGMENT
The Hon’ble Apex Court had extensive discussions over a number of laws and reports. It was said that no arrests could be made because doing so would be legal for the police officer. It was also remarked that having the authority to arrest someone is one thing, but having a reason to use it is quite another. Therefore, the police officer must be able to defend the arrest in addition to having the authority to do so.
The reputation and self-esteem of a person who is arrested and detained in a police cell can suffer irreparable damage. A person cannot be detained based solely on a standard accusation that he committed a crime. No arrest should be conducted without reasonable justification following an inquiry to determine the validity of a complaint. This is wise of a police officer in the interest of protecting the constitutional rights of a person and in his or her own interest as well. Additionally, it is a serious matter to deprive someone their freedom.
The Police Commission’s support for the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom is grounded in the Constitution. A person cannot be detained based only on a suspicion that they helped commit an infraction. Unless the crime is a serious offense, the officer making the arrest must have a good reason for believing that the arrest is necessary and justifiable. If a police officer gives someone notice to be present in the police station and not to leave without permission, an arrest must be avoided.
The Constitution’s Articles 21 and 22(1) inherently contain fundamental rights. They must be acknowledged and properly protected.
The Honourable Court set the following rules to ensure the efficient execution of such fundamental rights:
- A person who has been arrested and is being kept in custody has the right, upon request, to have one friend, relative, or another person who is familiar to him or likely to be interested in his welfare informed of his arrest and the location of his detention.
- When the arrested person is brought to the police station, the police officer must tell him of this privilege.
- The person who received notice of the arrest must be noted in the journal. These safeguards under Articles 21 and 22(1) must be carefully upheld
Further instructions stated that the magistrate’s responsibility is to ensure that the conditions under which the arrested individual is produced are met.
HELD
The court found that without a valid complaint and a thorough investigation, an arrest cannot be undertaken based on a simple accusation of an offense against a person or in a regular manner. According to his constitutional rights, a person may not be detained simply on the basis of a suspicion that he assisted in a crime, and he may not be detained until a reasonable conclusion has been made about the validity of the complaint. All arrests must comply with the aforementioned conditions up until additional legal arrangements are established on their behalf. In several police manuals, it was indicated that certain conditions should be added to the rights of those who had been arrested. The prerequisites listed here are not all-inclusive. In order to ensure the observance of these conditions, the Directors General of Police of all the Indian States were asked to provide the requisite orders. Additionally, it was requested that the departmental guidelines be updated to state that a police officer making an arrest must also note the circumstances of the arrest in the case diary.
This Article is written by Areeba Ahad of Vitasta School of Law and Humanities of 10th semester.
0 Comments