top of page
  • Writer's pictureLLC

Arrest - case laws

Section 41 1 (b) of Cr.PC

Supreme Court of India

Arnesh Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 2 July, 2014

The law mandates the police officer to state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid while making such arrest. Law further requires the police officers to record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest.

In pith and core, the police officer before arrest must put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required? What purpose will it serve? What object will it achieve? It is only after these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised.

An accused arrested without warrant by the police has the constitutional right under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 57, Cr.PC to be produced before the Magistrate without unnecessary delay and in no circumstances beyond 24 hours excluding the time necessary for the journey. During the course of the investigation of a case, an accused can be kept in detention beyond a period of 24 hours only when it is authorized by the Magistrate in the exercise of power under Section 167 Cr.PC.

The power to authorize detention is a very solemn function. It affects the liberty and freedom of citizens and needs to be exercised with great care and caution. Our experience tells us that it is not exercised with the seriousness it deserves. In many of the cases, detention is authorized in a routine, casual and cavalier manner. Before a Magistrate authorizes detention under Section 167, Cr.PC, he has to be first satisfied that the arrest made is legal and in accordance with law and all the constitutional rights of the person arrested is satisfied. If the arrest effected by the police officer does not satisfy the requirements of Section 41 of the Code, Magistrate is duty bound not to authorize his further detention and release the accused. In other words, when an accused is produced before the Magistrate, the police officer effecting the arrest is required to furnish to the Magistrate, the facts, reasons and its conclusions for arrest and the Magistrate, in turn, is to be satisfied that condition precedent for arrest under Section 41 Cr.PC has been satisfied and it is only thereafter that he will authorise the detention of an accused.

The Magistrate before authorizing detention will record its own satisfaction, may be in brief but the said satisfaction must reflect from its order. It shall never be based upon the ipse dixit of the police officer, for example, in case the police officer considers the arrest necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence or for proper investigation of the case or for preventing an accused from tampering with evidence or making inducement etc., the police officer shall furnish to the Magistrate the facts, the reasons, and materials on the basis of which the police officer had reached its conclusion.

Those shall be perused by the Magistrate while authorizing the detention and only after recording its satisfaction in writing that the Magistrate will authorize the detention of the accused. In fine, when a suspect is arrested and produced before a Magistrate for authorising detention, the Magistrate has to address the question whether specific reasons have been recorded for arrest and if so, prima facie those reasons are relevant and secondly a reasonable conclusion could at all be reached by the police officer that one or the other conditions stated above are attracted.

Section 41A makes it clear that in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under Section 41(1), Cr.PC, the police officer is required to issue a notice directing the accused to appear before him at a specified place and time. Law obliges such an accused to appear before the police officer and it further mandates that if such an accused complies with the terms of notice he shall not be arrested, unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that the arrest is necessary. At this stage also, the condition precedent for arrest as envisaged under Section 41 Cr.PC has to comply and shall be subject to the same scrutiny by the Magistrate as aforesaid.

The Supreme Court in the present case held that if the provisions of Section 41, Cr.PC which authorises the police officer to arrest an accused without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant are scrupulously enforced, the wrong committed by the police officers intentionally or unwittingly would be reversed and the number of cases which come to the Court for grant of anticipatory bail will substantially reduced.

The judges emphasized that the practice of mechanically reproducing in the case diary all or most of the reasons contained in Section 41 Cr.PC for effecting arrest be discouraged and discontinued.

The court ordered the following directions:

1.All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC;

2.All police officers be provided with a checklist containing specified sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);

3.The police officer shall forward the checklist duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;

4.The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention;

5.The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

6.Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

7.Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

8.Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

The court also added that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.

Section 43 - Allahabad High Court

Abdul Habib vs The State on 16 August, 1973

The essential thing is that the offence must be committed in his view. The words "in his view" mean "in presence of" or "within sight of" and not "in his opinion" or on his suspicion or on receipt of information.

Section 44

Allahabad High Court

Ram Chandra vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 25 July, 1977

The words of Section 44(2) are very plain and admit of no ambiguity. Under this section a magistrate has power to get a person' arrested in certain circumstances but he has no power to commit him to custody. To say that power must be deemed to be existing by implication is not correct. On the face of it, the framers of the Code never intended to give that power to the Magistrate. Section 44 consists of two els. (1) and (2), In Sub-clause (I), the Magistrate has been given power to commit a person after he has been arrested to custody. In Sub-clause (2) the power to commit the offender to custody is not there.

The reason why Under Section 44(1) the Magistrate has been given power to commit the offender to custody, and not Under Section 44(2), is not far to seek. Under Section 44(1) the offence is committed before the magistrate himself. He is sure about the guilt of the person committing the offence and, therefore, he has been given the power to commit him to custody. Under Section 44(2) the position is different ; the offence has not been committed in his presence and he is not sure whether the person brought before him under arrest has really committed offence or not. It is obviously because of this reason that he has not been given the power to commit the offender to custody. He cart just arrest him or get him arrested and possibly can even search his person to find out whether he is possessed of any incriminating article or not. Beyond this he is not permitted to do anything else.


Ritesh Sinha v State of UP on 2 August, 2019

The CJI-led bench said that in the absence of specific powers in the Code of Criminal Procedure, inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution should be invoked to confer such power on the Magistrate.

In Ritesh Sinha (supra), there was a split in verdict on the point whether the magistrate had implied powers to direct the accused to give voice samples. While Justice RP Desai held that the magistrate had ancillary or inherent power as per Section 53 of the CrPC read with Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act 1920 to order giving of voice samples. However, Justice Aftab Alam dissented on this point, and held that there was no such ancillary or inherent power. In view of the split in verdict, the matter was referred to larger bench, which is now answered.

It may be noted that Section 53 of the CrPC deals with the power to order medical examination of the accused by a registered medical practitioner, which includes examination of bodily fluids, hair samples, nail clippings etc. Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act 1920 deals with taking photographs and measurements of persons in custody. None of these provisions make explicit reference to voice samples.

"Would a judicial order compelling a person to give a sample of his voice violate the fundamental right to privacy under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, is the next question. The issue is interesting and debatable but not having been argued before us it will suffice to note that in view of the opinion rendered by this Court in Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others vs.State of Madhya Pradesh and others11, Gobind vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another12 and the Nine Judge’s Bench of this Court in K.S. Puttaswamy and another vs. Union of India and others13 the fundamental right to privacy cannot be construed as absolute and but must bow down to compelling public interest. We refrain from any further discussion and consider it appropriate not to record any further observation on an issue not specifically raised before us. (2016) 7 SCC 353, (1975) 2 SCC 148 , (2017) 10 SCC 1"

"In the light of the above discussions, we unhesitatingly take the view that until explicit provisions are engrafted in the Code of Criminal Procedure by Parliament, a Judicial Magistrate must be conceded the power to order a person to give a sample of his voice for the purpose of investigation of a crime. Such power has to be conferred on a Magistrate by a process of judicial interpretation and in exercise of jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. We order accordingly and consequently dispose the appeals in terms of the above."


Supreme Court of India

Shri D.K. Basu, Ashok K. Johri vs State Of West Bengal,State Of U.P on 18 December, 1996

We therefore, consider it appropriate to issue the following requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures :

(1) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations. The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register.

(2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest a such memo shall be attested by atleast one witness. who may be either a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be counter signed by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest.

(3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee.

(4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town through the legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest.

(5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon he is put under arrest or is detained.

(6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of he next friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest an the names and particulars of the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is.

(7) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The "Inspection Memo" must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee.

(8) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the concerned State or Union Territory. Director, Health Services should prepare such a penal for all Tehsils and Districts as well.

(9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be sent to the illaga Magistrate for his record.

(10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.

(11) A police control room should be provided at all district and state headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice board.

Failure to comply with the requirements hereinabove mentioned shall apart from rendering the concerned official liable for departmental action, also render his liable to be punished for contempt of court and the proceedings for contempt of court may be instituted in any High Court of the country, having territorial jurisdiction over the matter.

The requirements, referred to above flow from Articles 21 and 22 (1) of the Constitution and need to be strictly followed. These would apply with equal force to the other governmental agencies also to which a reference has been made earlier.

These requirements are in addition to the constitutional and statutory safeguards and do not detract from various other directions given by the courts from time to time in connection with the safeguarding of the rights and dignity of the arrestee.

Some punitive provisions are contained in the Indian Penal Code which seek to punish violation of right to life. Section 220 provides for punishment to an officer or authority who detains or keeps a person in confinement with a corrupt or malicious motive. Section 330 and 331 provide for punishment of those who inflict injury of grievous hurt on a person to extort confession or information in regard to commission of an offence.

Illustration (a) and (b) to Section 330 make a police officer guilty of torturing a person in order to induce him to confess the commission of a crime or to induce him to confess the commission of a crime or to induce him to point out places where stolen property is deposited. Section 330, therefore, directly makes torture during interrogation and investigation punishable under the Indian Penal Code. These Statutory provisions are, However, inadequate to repair the wrong done to the citizen. Prosecution of the offender is an obligation of the State in case of every crime but the victim of crime needs to be compensated monetarily also. The Court, where the infringement of the fundamental right is established, therefore, cannot stop by giving a mere declaration. It must proceed further and give compensatory relief, nor by way of damages as in a civil action but by way of compensation under the public law jurisdiction for the wrong done, due to breach of public duty by the State of not protecting the fundamental right to life of the citizen. To repair the wrong done and give judicial redress for legal injury is a compulsion of judicial conscience.


Supreme Court of India

Citizens For Democracy vs State Of Assam And Ors on 1 May, 1995

SC referred to judgment of Sunil Batra and Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, [1980] 3 SCR 855 extensively to issue the guidelines :

"Sunil Batra Etc. v. Delhi Administration and Ors. Etc., [1979] 1 SCR 392 this Court pronounced that under-trials shall be deemed to be in custody, but not undergoing punitive imprisonment. Fetters, especially bar fetters, shall be shunned as violative of human dignity, within and without prisons. The indiscriminate resort to handcuffs, when accused persons are taken to and from court and the expedient of forcing irons on prison inmates are illegal and shall be stopped forthwith save in small category of cases where an under-trial has a credible tendency for violence and escape a humanely graduated degree of "iron" restraint is permissible if - other disciplinary alternatives are unworkable. The burden of proof of the ground is on the custodian. And if he fails, he will be liable in law. Reckless handcuffing and chaining in public degrades, puts to shame finer sensibilities and is a slur on our culture."

The law declared by this Court in Shukla's case and Batra's case is a mandate under Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution of India and all concerned are bound to obey the same.We make it clear that the law laid down by this Court in the above said two judgments and the directions issued by us are binding on all concerned and any violation or circumvention shall attract the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act apart from other penal consequences under law.

"The defence of the State is that high-risk prisoners, even the under- trials, cannot be allowed to bid for escape, and where circumstances justified, any result-oriented measure, including fetters is legally permissible... A synthetic grasp of the claims of custodial security and prison humanity is essential to solve the dilemma posed by the Additional Solicitor General. If we are soft on security, escapes will escalate : so be stern, 'red in tooth and claw' is the submission. Security first and security last, is an argument with a familiar and fearful ring with Dwyerlist memories and recent happenings. To cry 'wolf as a cover for official violence upon helpless prisoners is a cowardly act. Chaining all prisoners, amputating many, caging some, can all be fobbed off, if every undertrial or convict were painted as a potentially dangerous maniac. Assuming a few are likely to escape, would you shoot a hundred prisoners or whip everyone every day or fetter all suspects to prevent one jumping jail? These wild apprehensions have no value in our human order, if Articles 14, 19 and 21 are the prime actors in the constitutional play. We just cannot accede to argument intended to stampede courts into vesting unlimited power in risky hands with no convincing mechanism for prompt, impartial check. A sober balance, a realistic system, with monitoring of abuses and reverence for human rights - that alone will fill the constitutional bill."

1.We declare, direct and lay down as a rule that handcuffs or other fetters shall not be forced on a prisoner - convicted or under-trial-while lodged in a jail anywhere in the country or while transporting or in transit from one jail to another or from jail to court and back. The police and the jail authorities, on their own, shall have no authority to direct the hand- cuffing of any inmate of a jail in the country or during transport from one jail to another or from jail to court and back.

2.Where the police or the jail authorities have well-grounded basis for drawing a strong inference that a particular prisoner is likely to jump jail or break out of the custody then the said prisoner be produced before the Magistrate concerned and a prayer for permission to handcuff the prisoner be made before the said Magistrate. Save in rare cases of concrete proof regarding proneness of the prisoner to violence,'his tendency to escape, he being so dangerous/desperate and the finding that no other practical way of forbidding escape is available, the Magistrate may grant permission to handcuff the prisoner.

3.In all the cases where a person arrested by police, is produced before the Magistrate and remand - judicial or non-judicial - is given by the Magistrate the person concerned shall not be handcuffed unless special orders in that respect are obtained from the Magistrate at the time of the grant of the remand.

4.When the police arrests a person in execution of a warrant of arrest obtained form a Magistrate, the person so arrested shall not be handcuffed unless the police has also obtained orders from the Magistrate for the handcuffing of the person to be so arrested.

5.Where a person is arrested by the police without warrant the police officer concerned may if he is satisfied, on the basis of the guide-lines given by us in para above, that it is necessary to handcuff such a person, he may do so till the time he is taken to the police station and thereafter his production before the Magistrate. Further use of fetters thereafter can only be under the orders of the Magistrate as already indicated by us.

6.We direct all ranks of police and the prison authorities to meticulously obey the above mentioned directions. Any violation of any of the directions issued by us by any rank of police in the country or member of the jail establishment shall be summarily punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act apart from other penal consequences under law.


Supreme Court of India

Sheela Barse vs Union Of India & Ors on on 15 February, 1983

(i) We would direct that four or five police lock ups should be selected in reasonably good localities where only female suspects should be kept and they should be guarded by female constables. Female suspects should not be kept in police lock up in which male suspects are detained. The State of Maharashtra has intimated to us that there are already three cells where female suspects are kept and are guarded by female constables and has assured the Court that two more cells with similar arrangements will be provided exclusively for female suspects.

(ii) We would further direct that interrogation of females should be carried out only in the presence of female police officers/constables.

(ii) Whenever a person is arrested by the police without warrant, he must be immediately informed of the the grounds of his arrest and in case of every arrest it must immediately be made known to the arrested person that he is entitled to apply for bail. The Maharashtra State Board of Legal Aid & Advice will forthwith get a pamphlet prepared setting out the legal rights of an arrested person and the State of Maharashtra will bring out sufficient number of printed copies of the pamphlet in Marathi which is the language of the people in the State of Maharashtra as also in Hindi and English and printed copies of the pamphlet in all the three languages shall be affixed in each cell in every police lock up and shall be read out to the arrested person in any of the three languages which he understands as soon as he is brought to the police station.

(iv) We would also direct that whenever a person is arrested by the police and taken to the police lock up, the police will immediately give an intimation of the fact of such arrest to the nearest Legal Aid Committee and such Legal Aid Committee will take immediate steps far the purpose of providing legal assistance to the arrested person at State cost provided he is willing to accept such legal assistance. The State Government will provide necessary funds to the concerned Legal Aid Committee for carrying out this direction.

(v) We would direct that in the city of Bombay, a City Sessions Judge, to be nominated by the principal Judge of the City Civil Court, preferably a lady Judge, if there is one, shall make surprise visits to police lock ups in the city periodically with a view to providing the arrested persons an opportunity to air their grievances and ascertaining what are the conditions in the police lock ups and whether the requisite facilities are being provided and the provisions of law are being observed and the directions given by us are being carried out. If it is found as a result of inspection that there are any lapses on the part of the police authorities, the City Sessions Judge shall bring them to the notice of the Commissioner of Police and if necessary to the notice of the Home Department and if even this approach fails, the City Sessions Judge may draw the attention of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Mahrashtra to such lapses. This direction in regard to police lock ups at the districts head quarters, shall be carried out by the Sessions Judge of the district concerned.

(vi) We would direct that as soon as a person is arrested, the police must immediately obtain from him the name of any relative or friend whom he would like to be informed about his arrest and the police should get in touch with such relative or friend and inform him about the arrest; and lastly

(vii) We would direct that the magistrate before whom an arrested person is produced shall enquire from the arrested person whether he has any complaint of torture or maltreatment in police custody and inform him that he has right under section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 to be medically examined. We are aware that section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 undoubtedly provides for examination of an arrested person by a medical practitioner at the request of the arrested person and it is a right conferred on the arrested person. But very often the arrested person is not aware of this right and on account of his ignorance, he is unable to exercise this right even though he may have been tortured or malterated by the police in police lock up. It is for this reason that we are giving a specific direction requiring the magistrate to inform the arrested person about this right of medical examination in case he has any complaint of torture or mal-treatment in police custody. We have no doubt that if these directions which are being given by us are carried out both in letter and spirit, they will afford considerable protection to prisoners in police lock ups and save them from possible torture or ill- treatment. The writ petition will stand disposed of in terms of this order.

Legality of narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test for the purpose of improving investigation efforts in criminal cases:-

Supreme Court of India

Selvi & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Anr on 5 May, 2010 (very important)

In our considered opinion, the compulsory administration of the impugned techniques violates the `right against self- incrimination'. This is because the underlying rationale of the said right is to ensure the reliability as well as voluntariness of statements that are admitted as evidence. This Court has recognised that the protective scope of Article 20(3) extends to the investigative stage in criminal cases and when read with Section 161(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 it protects accused persons, suspects as well as witnesses who are examined during an investigation.

The test results cannot be admitted in evidence if they have been obtained through the use of compulsion. Article 20(3) protects an individual's choice between speaking and remaining silent, irrespective of whether the subsequent testimony proves to be inculpatory or exculpatory.

Article 20(3) aims to prevent the forcible `conveyance of personal knowledge that is relevant to the facts in issue'. The results obtained from each of the impugned tests bear a `testimonial' character and they cannot be categorised as material evidence.

We are also of the view that forcing an individual to undergo any of the impugned techniques violates the standard of `substantive due process' which is required for restraining personal liberty.

Such a violation will occur irrespective of whether these techniques are forcibly administered during the course of an investigation or for any other purpose since the test results could also expose a person to adverse consequences of a non-penal nature.

The impugned techniques cannot be read into the statutory provisions which enable medical examination during investigation in criminal cases, i.e. the Explanation to Sections 53, 53-A and 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Such an expansive interpretation is not feasible in light of the rule of `ejusdem generis' and the considerations which govern the interpretation of statutes in relation to scientific advancements. We have also elaborated how the compulsory administration of any of these techniques is an unjustified intrusion into the mental privacy of an individual. It would also amount to `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment' with regard to the language of evolving international human rights norms. Furthermore, placing reliance on the results gathered from these techniques comes into conflict with the `right to fair trial'. Invocations of a compelling public interest cannot justify the dilution of constitutional rights such as the `right against self-incrimination'.

In light of these conclusions, we hold that no individual should be forcibly subjected to any of the techniques in question, whether in the context of investigation in criminal cases or otherwise. Doing so would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into personal liberty. However, we do leave room for the voluntary administration of the impugned techniques in the context of criminal justice, provided that certain safeguards are in place. Even when the subject has given consent to undergo any of these tests, the test results by themselves cannot be admitted as evidence because the subject does not exercise conscious control over the responses during the administration of the test. However, any information or material that is subsequently discovered with the help of voluntary administered test results can be admitted, in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The National Human Rights Commission had published `Guidelines for the Administration of Polygraph Test (Lie Detector Test) on an Accused' in 2000. These guidelines should be strictly adhered to and similar safeguards should be adopted for conducting the `Narcoanalysis technique' and the `Brain Electrical Activation Profile' test. The text of these guidelines has been reproduced below:

(i) No Lie Detector Tests should be administered except on the basis of consent of the accused. An option should be given to the accused whether he wishes to avail such test.

(ii) If the accused volunteers for a Lie Detector Test, he should be given access to a lawyer and the physical, emotional and legal implication of such a test should be explained to him by the police and his lawyer.

(iii) The consent should be recorded before a Judicial Magistrate.

(iv) During the hearing before the Magistrate, the person alleged to have agreed should be duly represented by a lawyer.

(v) At the hearing, the person in question should also be told in clear terms that the statement that is made shall not be a `confessional' statement to the Magistrate but will have the status of a statement made to the police.

(vi) The Magistrate shall consider all factors relating to the detention including the length of detention and the nature of the interrogation.

(vii) The actual recording of the Lie Detector Test shall be done by an independent agency (such as a hospital) and conducted in the presence of a lawyer.

(viii) A full medical and factual narration of the manner of the information received must be taken on record.


Delhi High Court

Sandeep Kumar vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & ... on 12 December, 2019:

The Committee has, after examining all of the above material in detail, given detailed suggestions as to the protocol to be followed by the police in the event of inter-state arrest. These read as under:

"1. The Police Officer after assignment of the case to him, must seek prior permission/sanction of the higher/superior officers in writing or on phone (in case of urgency) to go out of State/UT to carry out investigation.

2. In a case when the police officer decides to effect an arrest, he must set out the facts and record reasons in writing disclosing the satisfaction that arrest is necessary for the purpose of investigation. At first instance, he should move the Jurisdictional Magistrate to seek arrest/search warrants under Section 78 and 79 Cr PC except in emergent cases when the time taken is likely to result in escape of the accused or disappearance of incriminating evidence or the procurement of arrest/search warrant would defeat the purpose. The Police Officer must record reasons as to what were the compelling reasons to visit other State without getting arrest/search warrants.

3. Before proceeding outside the State, the police officer must make a comprehensive departure entry in the Daily Diary of his Police Station. It should contain names of the police officials and private individuals accompanying him; vehicle number; purpose of visit; specific place(s) to be visited; time and date of departure.

4. If the possible arrestee is a female, a lady police officer be made part of the team. The Police Officers should take their identity cards with them. All police officers in the team should be in uniform; bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations.

5. Before visiting the other State, the Police Officer must endeavour to establish contact with the local Police Station in whose jurisdiction he is to conduct the investigation. He must carry with him the translated copies of the Complaint/FIR and other documents in the language of the State which he intends to visit.

6. After reaching the destination, first of all, he should inform the concerned police station of the purpose of his visit to seek assistance and co-operation. The concerned SHO should provide/render all legal assistance to him. Entry to this effect must be made at the said police station.

7. After reaching the spot of investigation, search, if any should be strictly conducted in compliance of the procedure laid down u/s 100 Cr PC. All endeavour should be made to join independent public witnesses from the neighbourhood. In case of arrest, the police officer must follow the procedure u/s 41A and 41B and Section 50 and 51 Cr PC. The process of arrest carried out by the police must be in compliance with the guidelines given in DK Basu case (Supra) and the provisions of CrPC.

8. The arrested person must be given an opportunity to consult his lawyer before he is taken out of State.

9. While returning, the police officer must visit the local police station and cause an entry made in the Daily Diary specifying the name and address of the person(s) being taken out of the State; articles if any, recovered. The victim's name be also indicated.

10. Endeavor should be made to obtain transit remand after producing the arrestee before the nearest Magistrate unless exigencies of the situation warrant otherwise and the person can be produced before the Magistrate having jurisdiction of the case without infringing the mandate of S. 56 and 57 of Cr.P.C. within 24 hours.

11. The magistrate before whom the arrestee is produced, must apply his mind to the facts of the case and should not grant transit remand mechanically. He must satisfy himself that there exists material in the form of entries in the case diary that justifies the prayer for transit remand. The act of directing remand of an accused is fundamentally a judicial decision. The magistrate does not act in executive capacity while ordering detention of the accused. He must ensure that requirements of S. 41 (l)(b) are satisfied. The police officer must send the case diary along with the remand report so that the magistrate can appreciate the factual scenario and apply his mind whether there is a warrant for police remand or justification for judicial remand or there is no need for any remand at all. The magistrate should briefly set out reasons for his decision. (Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 1 SCC 314)

12. Another mandatory procedural requirement for the Magistrate considering a transit remand application is spelt out in Article 22 (1) of Constitution of India. This entitles the person arrested to be informed as soon as may be the grounds of such arrest. The Magistrate has to ensure that the arrested person is not denied the right to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. The Magistrate should ask the person arrested brought before him whether in fact he has been informed of the grounds of arrest and whether he requires to consult and be defended by any legal practitioner of his choice. (DK Basu, Supra) After the pronouncement of this judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, new Sections 41A to 41D have been added to prevent unnecessary arrest and misuse of powers. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter.

13. In terms of S. 41C, control rooms be established in every district. Names and addresses of the persons arrested and designation of the Police Officers who made the arrest be displayed. Control Room at State level must collect details of the persons so arrested.

14. The police officer must record all the proceedings conducted by him at the spot and prepare an 'arrest memo' indicating time, date of arrest and name of the relation/friend to whom intimation of arrest has been given. It must reveal the reasons for arrest.

15. Since the arrestee is to be taken out of his State to a place away where he may not have any acquaintance, he may be permitted to take along with him (if possible), his family member/acquaintance to remain with him till he is produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Such family member would be able to arrange legal assistance for him.

16. The arrested person must be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate at the earliest, in any case, not beyond 24 hours from the date of arrest excluding the journey time so that arrest of such person and his detention, if necessary, may be justified by a judicial order. The 24 hours period prescribed u/s 57 Cr PC is the outermost limit beyond which a person cannot be detained in police custody. It does not empower a police officer to keep a person in police station a minute longer than is necessary for the purpose of investigation and it does not give him an absolute right to keep a person till 24 hours.

17. On arrival at the police station, the police officer must make an arrival entry in the record and indicate the investigation carried out by him, the person arrested and the articles recovered. He should also inform his senior police officers/SHO concerned about it immediately. The superior Police Officer shall personally supervise such investigation.

18. The police officer should effect arrest u/s 41(l)(b) Cr PC only when he has reasonable suspicion and credible information. He must satisfy himself about the existence of the material to effect arrest. There must be definite facts or averments as distinguished from vague surmises or personal feelings. The materials before him must be sufficient to cause a bona-fide belief. He cannot take shelter under another person's belief or judgment. He must affect arrest at his own risk and responsibility as the effect of illegal arrest could be commission of offence of wrongful confinement punishable u/s 342 IPC. Burden lies on the IO to satisfy the Court about his bona-fide. No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter.

19. Medical examination soon after arrest to avoid possibility of physical torture during custody should be conducted.

20. The IO must maintain a complete and comprehensive case diary indicating the investigation carried out by him.

21. The log book of the vehicle used for transportation must be maintained and signed. The IO must indicate whether the vehicle was official or a private one; name of its driver and how and by whom it was arranged. Only official vehicle should be used for transportation to the extent possible.

22. At the time of recovery of the prosecutrix, the police officer, if he is satisfied that she is adult, should ascertain from her at the spot, whether she was present there with her free will. If the victim/prosecutrix is not willing to accompany the police officer or her relatives, the police officer must not exert force on the prosecutrix to take her away against her wishes. However, if the prosecutrix/victim of her own accord expresses willingness to accompany the police officer/relatives, her consent in writing should be obtained at the spot.

23. In case where the police officer finds the victim/prosecutrix to be a 'minor', soon after recovery, she should be produced before the local Child Welfare Committee for further decision regarding her custody. She must not be made to stay in the Police Station during night hours.

24. Statement of the prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. must be recorded at the earliest.

25. MHA/Central Govt/Commissioner of Police must frame suitable guidelines for police officers to render all suitable assistance. The failure to adhere to the rules/guidelines should render the police officer liable for departmental action as well as contempt of the Court.

26. The public prosecutor should provide required assistance to the police officer visiting his State at the time of seeking transit remand.

27. The MHA/State Government should circulate the Rules/Guidelines/Notifications etc from time to time to the Police officers in the State to create awareness. Periodically training should be provided to the Police Officers to sensitize them.

28. Instructions/Guidelines of similar nature should exist in all the States/UTs for speedy, smooth and effective inter-State investigation.

29. The delinquent Police Officer can be directed to pay compensation under the public law and by way of strict liability."

16. There is a further suggestion by way of addition to the report which reads as under:

"In partial modification of the joint report, it is suggested that if, in case of urgency or other considerations in the interest of investigation, it is not found feasible to inform the police station encompassing the jurisdiction of the search, seizure, arrest or investigation before the event, this should be done soon after the search, seizure, arrest etc. has been conducted. In all cases a diary entry should mandatorily be made in the police station of jurisdiction. Extant instructions of various state forces such as Karnataka already include this provision of informing after the event. Section 166 Cr PC also relevantly requires that if a search has to be conducted in another police station, the SHO may require the SHO of that police jurisdiction to do the needful. In case there are chances of loss of evidence, he may himself get the search conducted and forthwith inform the officer of the concerned police station."

17. Considering that the Committee comprised of a former Judge of this Court and a former DGP of the Delhi Police who was a police officer of the Indian Police Service, the Court accepts the above suggestions and directs that they be adopted for implementation by the CP, Delhi as well as the DGP, Uttar Pradesh in their respective jurisdictions. Orders to this effect shall be issued by the DGP, Uttar Pradesh and the CP Delhi within two weeks.

Summary of Directions

24. The petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) A copy of the report of the Committee be immediately forwarded both to the CP, Delhi and the DGP, Uttar Pradesh for appropriate disciplinary action to be initiated on the basis of the said report against the police officials under their respective control and supervision as directed in para 10 of this judgment.

(ii) The disciplinary inquiry in each case will be held by a senior level official, strictly in accordance with the procedures prescribed, and will be completed not later than six months from the date of receipt respectively by the CP, Delhi and the DGP, Uttar Pradesh respectively of the copy of the report of the Committee together with the certified copy of this order.

(iii) The suggestions of the Committee as set out in paras 15 and 16 of this judgment are directed to be adopted for implementation both by the Delhi Police and the police in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Orders to this effect shall be issued by the DGP, Uttar Pradesh and the CP Delhi within two weeks

(iv) A certified copy of this judgment together with a complete copy of the report of the Committee (together with its annexures) will be delivered forthwith to the CP, Delhi by a Special Messenger. Likewise copy of this judgment together with a complete copy of the report of the Committee (together with its annexures) will be delivered forthwith to the DGP, Uttar Pradesh by an approved courier and the tracking report of proof of delivery shall be kept in the file.

(v) Compensation of Rs.50,000/- each to both Sandeep and Nisha shall be paid by the State of Uttar Pradesh for their illegal detention by the UP police which stands established prima facie by the report of the Committee. The amounts should be paid within a period of four weeks along with a letter written to each of them personally by the Director General of Police of Uttar Pradesh himself, apologizing to each of them for the conduct of his police officials.

(vi) The CP, Delhi and the DGP, Uttar Pradesh will file compliance reports in this Court within six months and in any event not later than 30 th June 2020. The Registry will place the petition for this purpose before the Court immediately after the Court reopens i.e. 6th July 2020.

Fake encounter guidelines :

Supreme Court of India

People'S Union For Civil ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 23 September, 2014

1) Whenever the police is in receipt of any intelligence or tip-off regarding criminal movements or activities pertaining to the commission of grave criminal offence, it shall be reduced into writing in some form (preferably into case diary) or in some electronic form. Such recording need not reveal details of the suspect or the location to which the party is headed. If such intelligence or tip-off is received by a higher authority, the same may be noted in some form without revealing details of the suspect or the location.

(2) If pursuant to the tip-off or receipt of any intelligence, as above, encounter takes place and firearm is used by the police party and as a result of that, death occurs, an FIR to that effect shall be registered and the same shall be forwarded to the court under Section 157 of the Code without any delay. While forwarding the report under Section 157 of the Code, the procedure prescribed under Section 158 of the Code shall be followed.

(3) An independent investigation into the incident/encounter shall be conducted by the CID or police team of another police station under the supervision of a senior officer (at least a level above the head of the police party engaged in the encounter). The team conducting inquiry/investigation shall, at a minimum, seek:

(a) To identify the victim; colour photographs of the victim should be taken;

(b) To recover and preserve evidentiary material, including blood-stained earth, hair, fibers and threads, etc., related to the death;

(c) To identify scene witnesses with complete names, addresses and telephone numbers and obtain their statements (including the statements of police personnel involved) concerning the death;

(d) To determine the cause, manner, location (including preparation of rough sketch of topography of the scene and, if possible, photo/video of the scene and any physical evidence) and time of death as well as any pattern or practice that may have brought about the death;

(e) It must be ensured that intact fingerprints of deceased are sent for chemical analysis. Any other fingerprints should be located, developed, lifted and sent for chemical analysis;

(f) Post-mortem must be conducted by two doctors in the District Hospital, one of them, as far as possible, should be In- charge/Head of the District Hospital. Post-mortem shall be video- graphed and preserved;

(g) Any evidence of weapons, such as guns, projectiles, bullets and cartridge cases, should be taken and preserved. Wherever applicable, tests for gunshot residue and trace metal detection should be performed.

(h) The cause of death should be found out, whether it was natural death, accidental death, suicide or homicide.

(4) A Magisterial inquiry under Section 176 of the Code must invariably be held in all cases of death which occur in the course of police firing and a report thereof must be sent to Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction under Section 190 of the Code.

(5) The involvement of NHRC is not necessary unless there is serious doubt about independent and impartial investigation. However, the information of the incident without any delay must be sent to NHRC or the State Human Rights Commission, as the case may be.

(6) The injured criminal/victim should be provided medical aid and his/her statement recorded by the Magistrate or Medical Officer with certificate of fitness.

(7) It should be ensured that there is no delay in sending FIR, diary entries, panchnamas, sketch, etc., to the concerned Court.

(8) After full investigation into the incident, the report should be sent to the competent court under Section 173 of the Code. The trial, pursuant to the chargesheet submitted by the Investigating Officer, must be concluded expeditiously.

(9) In the event of death, the next of kin of the alleged criminal/victim must be informed at the earliest.

(10) Six monthly statements of all cases where deaths have occurred in police firing must be sent to NHRC by DGPs. It must be ensured that the six monthly statements reach to NHRC by 15th day of January and July, respectively. The statements may be sent in the following format along with post mortem, inquest and, wherever available, the inquiry reports:

(i) Date and place of occurrence.

(ii) Police Station, District.

(iii) Circumstances leading to deaths:

(a) Self defence in encounter.

(b) In the course of dispersal of unlawful assembly.

(c) In the course of affecting arrest.

(iv) Brief facts of the incident.

(v) Criminal Case No.

(vi) Investigating Agency.

(vii) Findings of the Magisterial Inquiry/Inquiry by Senior Officers:

(a) disclosing, in particular, names and designation of police officials, if found responsible for the death; and

(b) whether use of force was justified and action taken was lawful.

(11) If on the conclusion of investigation the materials/evidence having come on record show that death had occurred by use of firearm amounting to offence under the IPC, disciplinary action against such officer must be promptly initiated and he be placed under suspension.

(12) As regards compensation to be granted to the dependants of the victim who suffered death in a police encounter, the scheme provided under Section 357-A of the Code must be applied.

(13) The police officer(s) concerned must surrender his/her weapons for forensic and ballistic analysis, including any other material, as required by the investigating team, subject to the rights under Article 20 of the Constitution.

(14) An intimation about the incident must also be sent to the police officer’s family and should the family need services of a lawyer / counselling, same must be offered.

(15) No out-of-turn promotion or instant gallantry rewards shall be bestowed on the concerned officers soon after the occurrence. It must be ensured at all costs that such rewards are given/recommended only when the gallantry of the concerned officers is established beyond doubt.

(16) If the family of the victim finds that the above procedure has not been followed or there exists a pattern of abuse or lack of independent investigation or impartiality by any of the functionaries as above mentioned, it may make a complaint to the Sessions Judge having territorial jurisdiction over the place of incident. Upon such complaint being made, the concerned Sessions Judge shall look into the merits of the complaint and address the grievances raised therein.

Supreme Court of India

State Of Maharashtra vs Christian Community Welfare ... on 15 October, 2003 (This judgment is for academic purposes only and must be read with section 46 (4) )


Herein we notice the mandate issued by the High Court prevents the Police from arresting a lady without the presence of a lady constable. Said direction also prohibits the arrest of a lady after sunset and before sunrise under any circumstances. While we do agree with the object behind the direction issued by the High Court in Clause (vii) of operative part of its judgment, we think a strict compliance of the said direction, in a given circumstance, would cause practical difficulties to the investigating agency and might even give room for evading the process of law by unscrupulous accused. While it is necessary to protect the female sought to be arrested by the Police from Police misdeeds, it may not be always possible and practical to have the presence of a lady constable when the necessity for such arrest arises, therefore, we think this direction issued requires some modification without disturbing the object behind the same. We think the object will be served if a direction is issued to the arresting authority that while arresting a female person, all efforts should be made to keep a lady constable present but in circumstances where the arresting officers is reasonably satisfied that such presence of a lady constable is not available or possible and/or the delay in arresting caused by securing the presence of a lady constable would impede the course of investigation such arresting officer for reasons to be recorded either before the arrest or immediately after the arrest be permitted to arrest a female person for lawful reasons at any time of the day or night depending on the circumstances of the case even that without the presence of a lady constable."

RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTED PERSON - a sample format : Effort must be maintained to created your own set after including legislative enactment in your answer , and supplement it with judicial case laws.

Right to know the grounds of Arrest Article 22(1)of the Constitution of India also states that no police officer should arrest any person without informing the ground of arrest.

Section 50 of CrPC says that every police officer or any other person who is authorised to arrest a person without a warrant should inform the arrested person about the offence for which he is arrested and other grounds for such an arrest. It is the duty of the police officer and he cannot refuse it.

Section 50A of CrPC obligates a person making an arrest to inform of the arrest to any of his friends or relative or any other person in his interest. The police officer should inform the arrested person that he has a right to information about his arrest to the nominated person as soon as he is put under custody.

Section 55 of CrPC states that whenever a police officer has authorised his subordinate to arrest any person without a warrant, the subordinate officer needs to notify the person arrested of the substance of written order that is given, specifying the offence and other grounds of arrest.

Section 75 of CrPC says that the police officer(or any other officer) executing the warrant should notify the substance to the person arrested and show him a warrant if it required.

2) Right to be produced before the Magistrate without unnecessary delay

Article 22(2) of the Constitution states that the police officer making an arrest should be produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. If the police officer fails to produce before Magistrate within 24 hours, he will be liable for wrongful detention.

Section 57 of CrPC states that a police officer making an arrest without a warrant should produce the arrested person without unnecessary delay before the Magistrate having jurisdiction or a police officer in charge of the police station, subject to the conditions of the arrest.

Section 76 of CrPC states that the police officer executing a warrant of arrest should produce the arrested person before the court before which he is required by law to produce the person. It states that the person should be produced within 24 hours of arrest. While calculating the time period of 24 hours, it must exclude the time which is required for the journey from the place of detaining to the Magistrate Court.

Rights to informed of grounds of arrest and bail

Subsection(2) of Section 50 of CrPC states that when a police officer arrests any person without a warrant for an offence other than non-cognizable offence; he shall inform him that he has a right to release on bail and to make an arrangement for the sureties on his behalf.

Right to consult a lawyer

Section 41D of CrPC states the right of the prisoners to consult his lawyer during interrogation. Its the reproduction of the guidelines laid down in D K Basu , a statutory approval of the judicial law .

Article 22(1) of the constitution states that the arrested person has a right to appoint a lawyer and be defended by the pleader of his choice.

Section 303 of CrPC states that when a person is alleged to have committed an offence before the criminal court or against whom proceedings have been initiated, has a right to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice

Right to free Legal Aid

Section 304 of CrPC states that when a trial is conducted before the Court of Session, and the accused is not represented by the legal practitioner, or when it appears that the accused has no sufficient means to appoint a pleader then, the court may appoint a pleader for his defence at the expense of the State.

Article 39A obligates a state to provide free legal aid for the purpose of securing justice. This right has also been explicitly given in the case of Khatri (II) VS State of Bihar 1986 SCR (1) 590 .The court held that “to provide free legal aid to the indigent accused person”. It is also given at the time when the accused is produced before the Magistrate for the first time along with time commences. The right of the accused person cannot be denied even when the accused fails to apply for it. If the state fails to provide legal aid to the indigent accused person, then it will vitiate the whole trial as void. In the case of Sukh Das vs Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh 1978 SCR (3) 608 , the court held:- “The right of indigent accused cannot be denied even when the accused fails to apply for it”. If the state fails to provide legal aid to the indigent accused person it will vitiate the whole trial as void.

Right to keep silence (it is not a directly recognized right but partially recognized when you read it with Selvi v. State of karnataka and is confined to cases of self incrimination only)

Right to keep silence is not recognized in any law expressly like Miranda rights in USA but it can derive its authority from CrPC and the Indian Evidence Act if we refer provisions , such as section 24 , 25 of Indian Evidence Act and numerous other provisions of Cr.PC . This right is mainly related to the statement and confession made in the court. Whenever a confession or a statement is made in the court, it is the duty of the Magistrate to find, that such a statement or the confession was made voluntarily and its true , It should be in tune with spirit of the law as contained under section 164 of the Cr.PC .

Article 20 (2) states that no person can be compelled to be a witness against himself. This is the principle of self- incrimination. This principle was reiterated by the case of Nandini Satpathy vs P.L Dani . It stated, “No one can force any person to give any statement or to answer questions and the accused person has a right to keep silence during the process of interrogation”. Further section 161 (2) of CrPC also provides no compulsion to speak over the matters which are self incriminatory in nature.

(Right to privacy as held in Selvi V. State of karnataka (Supra) must be kept in mind. Also article 20 (3) as to right against self incrimination)

Right to be Examined by the medical practitioner

Section 54 of CrpC requires a mandatory examination of the accused person and a report to be prepared by medical officer mentioning therein injuries and marks of violence on the accused and the time at which it was inflicted . Salutary object of law is no doubt to prevent police excesses over the accused and prevent torture . The provision only furthers the constitutional spirit as envisaged by article 21 and protects the dignity of an arrested individual.

General Rights of the Arrested Person :

Section 55A of CrPC provides that it shall be the duty of the person, under whose custody the arrested person is to take reasonable care of the health and safety of the accused.

The arrested person is to be protected from cruel and inhuman treatment.

Section 358 of CrPC gives rights to the compensation to the arrested person who was groundlessly arrested , it provides for compensation of 1000 Rs.

Section 41A of CrPC states that the police officer may give the notice to a person suspected of committing a cognizable offence to appear before him at such date and place.

Section 46 (3) of CrPC prescribes the mode of the arrest. i.e submission to custody, touching the body physically, or to a body. The police officer should not cause death to the person while making an arrest unless the arrestee is charged with an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment.

Section 49 of CrPC states that the police officer should not make more restrained than in necessary for the escape. Excessive use of force is frowned upon by the constitutional set up and its even prohibited by legislature.

Supreme Court of India

Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration on 29 April, 1980

Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 1535, 1980 SCR (3) 855

Even orders of superiors are no valid justification as constitutional rights cannot be kept in suspense by superior orders, unless there is material, sufficiently stringent, to satisfy a reasonable mind that dangerous and desperate is the prisoner who is being transported and further that by adding to the escort party or other strategy he cannot be kept under control. It is hard to imagine such situations. We must repeat that it is unconscionable, indeed, outrageous, to make the strange classification between better class prisoners and ordinary prisoners in the matter of handcuffing. This elitist concept has no basis except that on the assumption the ordinary Indian is a sub-citizen and freedoms under Part III of the constitution are the privilege of the upper sector of society.

Merely because a person is charged with a grave offence he cannot be handcuffed, He may be very quiet, well-behaved, docile or even timid. Merely because the offence is serious, the inference of escape proneness or desperate character does not follow. Many other conditions mentioned in the Police Manual are totally incongruous with what we have stated above and must fall as unlawful. Tangible testimony, documentary or other, or desperate behaviour, geared to making good his escaped alone will be a valid ground for handcuffing and fettering, and even this may be avoided by increasing the strength of the escorts or taking the prisoners in well protected vans. It is heartening to note that in some States in this country no handcuffing is done at all, save in rare cases, when taking under-trials to courts and the scary impression that unless the person is confined in irons he will run away is a convenient myth.

Even in cases where, in extreme circumstances, handcuffs have to be put on the prisoner, the escorting authority must record contemporaneously the reasons for doing so. Otherwise, under Art. 21 the procedure will be unfair and bad in law. Nor will mere recording the reasons do, as that can be a mechanical process mindlessly made. The escorting officer, whenever he handcuffs a prisoner produced in court, must show the reasons so recorded to the Presiding Judge and get his approval. Otherwise, there is no control over possible arbitrariness in applying handcuffs and fetters. The minions of the police establishment must make good their security recipes by getting judicial approval. And, once the court directs that handcuffs shall be off no escorting authority can overrule judicial direction. This is implicit in Art. 21 which insists upon fairness, reasonableness and justice in the very procedure which authorises stringent deprivation of life and liberty. The ratio in Maneka Gandhi's case and Sunil Batra's ease (supra), read in its proper light, leads us to this conclusion.

. The nature of the accusation is not the criterion. The clear and present danger of escape breaking out of the police control is the determinant. And for this there must be clear material, not glib assumption, record of reasons and judicial oversight and summary hearing and direction by the court where the victim is produced.Armed escorts, worth the salt, can overpower any unarmed under-trial and extraguards can make up exceptional needs. In very special situations, we do not rule out the application of irons .

Whether a person should be physically restrained and, if so, what should be the degree of restraint, is a matter which affects the person in custody so long as he remains in custody. Consistent with the fundamental rights of such person the restraint can be imposed, if at all, to a degree no greater than is necessary for preventing his escape. To prevent his escape is the object of imposing the restraint, and that object defines at once the bounds of that power.

Now whether handcuffs or other restraint should be imposed on a prisoner is primarily a matter for the decision of the authority responsible for his custody. It is a judgment to be exercised with reference to each individual case. It is for that authority to exercise its discretion, and I am not willing to accept that the primary decision should be that of any other. The matter is one where the circumstances may change from one moment to another, and inevitably in some cases it may fall to the decision of the escorting authority midway to decide on imposing a restraint on the prisoner. I do not think that any prior decision of an external authority can be reasonably imposed on the exercise of that power. But I do agree that there is room for imposing a supervisory regime over the exercise of that power. One sector of supervisory jurisdiction could appropriately lie with the court trying the accused, and it would be desirable for the custodial authority to inform that court of the circumstances in which, and the justification for, imposing a restraint on the body of the accused. It should be for the court concerned to work out the modalities of the procedure requisite for the purpose of enforcing such control.

How do you arrest a judge?

Supreme Court of India

Delhi Judicial Service ... vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. Etc-Etc on 11 September, 1991

Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 2176, 1991 SCR (3) 936

guidelines of arrest of a judicial officer :

(A) If a judicial officer is to be arrested for some offence, it should be done under intimation to the District Judge or the High Court as the case may be.

(B) If facts and circumstances necessitate the immediate arrest of a judicial officer of the subordinate judiciary, a technical or formal arrest may be effected.

(C) The facts of such arrest should be immediately communicated to the District and Sessions Judge of the concerned District and the Chief Justice of the High Court.

(D) The Judicial Officer so arrested shall not be taken to a police station, without the prior order or directions of the District & Sessions Judge of the concerned District, if available.

(E) Immediate facilities shall be provided to the Judicial Officer to communication with his family members, legal advisers and Judicial Officers, including the District & Sessions Judge.

(F) No statement of a Judicial Officer who is under arrest be recorded nor any panchnama be drawn up nor any medical tests be conducted except in the presence of the Legal Adviser of the Judicial Officer concerned or another Judicial Office of equal or higher rank, it' available.

(G) There should be no handcuffing of a Judicial Officer. If, however, violent resistance to arrest is offered or there is imminent need to effect physical arrest in order to avert danger to life and limb, the person resisting arrest may be overpowered and' handcuffed. In such case, immediate report shall be made to the District & Sessions Judge concerned and also to the Chief Justice of the High Court.

But the burden would be on the Police to establish necessity for effecting physical arrest and handcuffing the Judicial Officer and if it be established that the physical arrest and handcuffing of the Judicial Officer was unjustified, the Police Officers causing or responsible for such arrest and handcuffing would be guilty of misconduct and would also be personally liable for compensation and/or damages as may be summarily determined by the High Court.

The above guidelines are not exhaustive but these are minimum safeguards which must be observed in case of arrest of a judicial officer. These guidelines should be implement- ed by the State Government as well as by the High Courts. We, accordingly, direct that a copy of the guidelines shall be forwarded to the Chief Secretaries of all the State Governments and to all the High Courts with a direction that the same may be brought to the notice of the concerned officers for compliance.

If it is necessary for a Judicial Officer or a Subordinate Judicial Officer to visit the Police Station in connection with his official duties, he must do so with prior intimation of his visit to the District & Sessions Judge.

The relevant Circular Letters of the Allahabad High Court and the G.Os. issued by Central Government for strict observance of the directions of the Apex Court in the abovenoted case are as under----

(i) C.L. No. 54/IX-f-69/Admn. ‘G’ dated October 22, 1992

(ii) C.L. No. 190117/4/90-Jus. Dated 26.4.1990/3.5.1990

(iii) Central Government’s G.O. No. VII-11017/15/88-G.P.A. II, dated 4.10.1988

(iv) Central Government’s Letter No. 19017/3/92-Jus., dated 3.4.1992/23.4.1992

(v) Central Government’s Letter No. VI-25013/42/89-G.P.A. II, dt. 31.3.1992


Supreme Court of India

K. Veeraswami vs Union Of India And Others on 25 July, 1991

Equivalent citations: 1991 SCR (3) 189, 1991 SCC (3) 655

in the context of Judges of the superior courts, it was observed : (SCC pp. 707-09, paras 59 and 60) "59. There is, however, apprehension that the executive being the largest litigant is likely to misuse the power to prosecute the Judges. That apprehension in our over-litigious society seems to be not unjustified or unfounded. The Act no doubt provides certain safeguards. Section 6 providing for prior sanction from the competent authority and directing that no court shall take cognisance of the offence under Section 5(1) without such prior sanction is indeed a protection for Judges from frivolous and malicious prosecution. It is a settled law that the authority entitled to grant sanction must apply its mind to the facts of the case and all the evidence collected before forming an opinion whether to grant sanction or not. Secondly, the trial is by the court which is independent of the executive. But these safeguards may not be adequate. Any complaint against a Judge and its investigation by the CBI, if given publicity will have a far- reaching impact on the Judge and the litigant public. The need therefore, is a judicious use of taking action under the Act. Care should be taken that honest and fearless judges are not harassed. They should be protected.

We therefore, direct that no criminal case shall be registered under Section 154 CrPC against a Judge of the High Court, Chief Justice of High Court or Judge of the Supreme Court unless the Chief Justice of 1 (1991) 3 SCC 655 India is consulted in the matter. Due regard must be given by the Government to the opinion expressed by the Chief Justice. If the Chief Justice is of opinion that it is not a fit case for proceeding under the Act, the case shall not be registered."

Supreme Court of India

U.P Judicial Officers Assn vs Union Of India on 7 March, 1994

We make an interim order that no crime or criminal case shall be registered against a judicial officer in respect of anything allegedly done or purported to be done in the discharge of his duty or in his capacity as holder of such judicial office without the prior permission of the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned.

This order was approved by the constitutional bench judgment of Supreme court under the case of U.P. Judicial Officers' Asso. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 14 August, 2002.

(follwing has been sufficiently explained in detail in investigation chapter , hence reading of this part is directory only) Irregularities of Arrest or investigation : Will it vitiate the trial or cognizance ? Supreme Court of India

State Of Punjab vs Balbir Singh on 1 March, 1994

In State of Maharashtra v. P. K. Pathak3 it is held that 1 (1981) 2 SCC 1: 1981 SCC (Cri) 292 2 AIR 1956 SC 411: 1956 Cri L.J 801 3 (1980) 2 SCC 259: 1980 SCC (Cri) 428: AIR 1980 SC 1224 absence of any independent witness from the locality to witness the search does not affect the trial and the conviction of the accused under the Customs Act. In Radha Kishan v. State of Up.4 it is held that irregularity in a search would, however, cast a duty upon the court to scrutinise the evidence regarding the search very carefully. In Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari5 it is held that when the salutory provisions have not been complied with, it may, however, affect the weight of the evidence in support of the search or may furnish a reason for disbelieving the evidence produced by the prosecution unless the prosecution properly explains such circumstance which made it impossible for it to comply with these provisions. In State of Maharashtra v. Natwarlal Damodardas Soni6 after referring to the above- mentioned decisions, this Court observed as under: (SCC p. 673, para 9) "Taking the first contention first, it may be observed that the police had powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure to search and seize this gold if they had reason to believe that a cognizable offence had been committed in respect thereof. Assuming arguendo, that the search was illegal, then also, it will not affect the validity of the seizure and further investigation by the Customs Authorities or the validity of the trial which followed on the complaint of the Assistant Collector of Customs."

7. It therefore emerges that non-compliance of these provisions i.e. Sections 100 and 165 CrPC would amount to an irregularity and the effect of the same on the main case depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. of course, in such a situation, the court has to consider whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused and also examine the evidence in respect of search in the light of the fact that these provisions have not been compiled with and further consider whether the weight of evidence is in any manner affected because of the non-compliance. It is well settled that the testimony of a witness is not to be doubted or discarded merely on the ground that he happens to be an official but as a rule of caution and depending upon the circumstances of the case, the courts look for independent corroboration. This again depends on question whether the official has deliberately failed to comply with these provisions or failure was due to lack of time and opportunity to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with these provisions.

In H.N. Rishbud and Anr. versus State of Delhi the question considered by this Court was whether after the court takes cognizance, trial can be held to be initiated merely on the ground that investigation was invalid. Answering in the negative, this Court held that if the plea of invalidity of investigation is raised at sufficiently early stage, the court, instead of taking cognizance direct reinvestigation by competent investigating officer. But, after cognizance is taken the trial cannot be quashed for invalidity of investigation.

11. The observations in the said judgment are:-

“9. The question then requires to be considered whether and to what extent the trial which follows such investigation is vitiated. Now, trial follows cognizance and cognizance is preceded by investigation. This is undoubtedly the basic scheme of the Code in respect of cognizable cases. But it does not necessarily follow that an invalid investigation nullifies the cognizance or trial based thereon. Here we are not concerned with the effect of the breach of a mandatory provision regulating the competence or procedure of the Court as regards cognizance or trial. It is only with reference to such a breach that the question as to whether it constitutes an illegality vitiating the proceedings or a mere irregularity arises. A defect or illegality in investigation, 2 AIR 1955 SC 196, (1955) 1 SCR 1150 however serious, has no direct bearing on the competence or the procedure relating to cognizance or trial. No doubt a police report which results from an investigation is provided in Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the material on which cognizance is taken. But it cannot be maintained that a valid and legal police report is the foundation of the jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance. Supreme Court

R.A.H. Siguran vs Shankare Gowda @ Shankara on 18 August, 2017

That an illegality committed in the course of investigation does not affect the competence and the jurisdiction of the Court for trial is well settled as appears from the cases in Prabhu v. Emperor (AIR 1944 PC 73) and Lumbhardar Zutshi v. King (AIR 1950 PC 26). These no doubt relate to the illegality of arrest in the course of investigation while we are concerned in the present cases with the illegality with reference to the machinery for the collection of the evidence. This distinction may have a bearing on the question of prejudice or miscarriage of justice, but both the cases clearly show that invalidity of the investigation has no relation to the competence of the Court. We are, therefore, clearly, also, of the opinion that where the cognizance of the case has in fact been taken and the case has proceeded to termination, the invalidity of the precedent investigation does not vitiate the result, unless miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby.

It does not follow, however, that the invalidity of the investigation is to be completely ignored by the Court during trial. When the breach of such a mandatory provision is brought to the knowledge of the Court at a sufficiently early stage, the Court, while not declining cognizance, will have to take the necessary steps to get the illegality cured and the defect rectified, by ordering such reinvestigation as the circumstances of an individual case may call for.

In M.C. Sulkunte v. State of Mysore [(1970) 3 SCC 513], the main question raised by the appellant in an appeal against the order of conviction was that the sanction to investigate the offence given by the Magistrate was not proper inasmuch as he had not recorded any reason as to why he had given permission to the Inspector of Police to investigate the offence of criminal misconduct of obtaining illegal gratification. Considering Section 5-A of the Act, Their Lordships observed: (SCC p. 517, para 15) “15. Although laying the trap was part of the investigation and it had been done by a police officer below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police, it cannot on that ground be held that the sanction was invalid or that the conviction ought not to be maintained on that ground. It has been emphasised in a number of decisions of this Court that to set aside a conviction it must be shown that there has been miscarriage of justice as a result of an irregular investigation. The observations in State of M.P. v. Mubarak Ali [1959 Supp (2) SCR 201], at pp. 210-11 to the effect that when the Magistrate without applying his mind only mechanically issues the order giving permission the investigation is tainted cannot help the appellant before us.”

In Muni Lal v. Delhi Admn [(1971) 2 SCC 48], this Court was considering the question with regard to the irregularity in investigation for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Following earlier decisions, this Court held: (SCC p. 52, para 14) “14. From the above proposition it follows that where cognizance of the case has in fact been taken and the case has proceeded to termination, the invalidity of the preceding investigation will not vitiate the result unless miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby and the accused has been prejudiced. Assuming in favour of the appellant, that there was an irregularity in the investigation and that Section 5-A of the Act, was not complied with in substance, the trial by the Special Judge cannot be held to be illegal unless it is shown that miscarriage of justice has been caused on account of illegal investigation. The learned counsel for the appellant has been unable to show us how there has been any miscarriage of justice in this case and how the accused has been prejudiced by any irregular investigation.”

In H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi [AIR 1955 SC 196], it was held that an illegality committed in the course of investigation does not affect the competence and jurisdiction of the court for trial and where cognizance of the case has in fact been taken and the case has proceeded to termination of the invalidity of the preceding investigation does not vitiate the result unless miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby. When any breach of the mandatory provisions relating to investigation is brought to the notice of the court at an early stage of the trial the Court will have to consider the nature and extent of the violation and pass appropriate orders for such rectification of irregularity or illegality as may be called for, wholly or partly, and direct investigation by such officer as it considers appropriate with reference to the requirements of law . SOME OTHER PROVISIONS PROVIDING IMMUNITY FROM ARREST OUTSIDE THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE :

Under the constitution of India Special provision also exists President and Governors under article 361 (3) of the Constitution of India which provides for immunity from arrest during their term of office . However , freedom from arrest is limited to duration of the term of office of President of India or Governor of the state. 361. Protection of President and Governors and Rajpramukhs

(1) The President, or the Governor or Rajpramukh of a State, shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties: Provided that the conduct of the President may be brought under review by any court, tribunal or body appointed or designated by either House of Parliament for the investigation of a charge under Article 61: Provided further that nothing in this clause shall be construed as restricting the right of any person to bring appropriate proceedings against the Governor of India or the Government of a State

(2) No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President, or the Governor of a State, in any court during his term of office

(3) No process for the arrest or imprisonment of the President, or the Governor of a State, shall issue from any court during his term of office

(4) any civil proceedings in which relief is claimed against the President, or the Governor of a State, shall be instituted during his term of office in any court in respect of any act done or purporting to be done by him in his personal capacity, whether before or after he entered upon his office as President, or as Governor of such State, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to the President or Governor, as the case may be, or left at his office stating the nature of the proceedings, the cause of action therefor, the name, description and place of residence of the party by whom such proceedings are to be instituted and the relief which he claims Under Civil Procedure Code 1908 , there are certain exemption from arrest in "Civil cases or civil process" this must not be confused with criminal process under the Cr.PC Section 56 Of Civil Procedure Code , 1908 provides that: Prohibition of arrest or detention of women in execution of decree for money- Notwithstanding anything in this Part, the Court shall not order the arrest or detention in the civil prison of a woman in execution of a decree for the payment of money. ( A woman cannot be arrested and detained in execution of decree for payment of money) Section 135 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 "Exemption from arrest under civil process"

(1) No Judge, Magistrate or other judicial officer shall be liable to arrest under civil process while going to, presiding in, or returning from his Court.

(2) Where any matter is pending before a tribunal having jurisdiction therein, or believing in good faith that it has such jurisdiction, the parties thereto, their pleader, mukhtars, revenue-agents and recognized agents, and their witnesses acting in obedience to a summons, shall be exempt from arrest under civil process other than process issued by such tribunal for contempt of Court while going to or attending such tribunal for the purpose of such matter, and while returning from such tribunal.

(3) Nothing in sub-section (2) shall enable a judgment-debtor to claim exemption from arrest under an order for immediate execution or where such judgment-debtor attends to show cause why he should not be committed to person in execution of a decree.

Section 135A of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 "Exemption of members of legislative bodies from arrest and detention under civil process"

(1) No person shall be liable to arrest or detention in prison under civil process-

(a) if he is a member of-

(i) either House of Parliament, or

(ii) the legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State, or

(iii) a Legislative Assembly of a Union territory,

during the continuance of any meeting of such House of Parliament or, as the case may be, of the Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council; (b) if he is a member of any committee of-

(i) either House of Parliament, or

(ii) the Legislative Assembly of a State or Union territory, or

(iii) the Legislative council of a State,

during the continuance of any meeting of such committee;

(c) if he is a member of-

(i) either House of Parliament, or

(ii) a Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State having both such Houses, during the continuance of a joint sitting, meeting, conference or joint committee of the Houses of Parliament or Houses of the State Legislature, as the case may be, and during the forty days before and after such meeting, sitting or conference. ( the highlighted part is the duration of immunity from arrest in the civil process to the members of legislative bodies )

(2) A person released from detention under sub-section (1), shall, subject the provisions, of the said sub-section, be liable to re-arrest and to the further detention to which he would have been liable if he had not been released under the provisions of sub-section (1). Constitutional remedies for compensation in wrongful arrest : In Hardeep Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh.[19] The appellant therein was engaged in running a coaching centre where students were given tuition to prepare for entrance test for different professional courses. On certain allegation, he was arrested and taken to police station where he was handcuffed by the police without there being any valid reason. A number of daily newspapers published the appellant’s photographs and on seeing his photograph in handcuffs, the appellant’s elder sister was so shocked that she expired. After a long and delayed trial, the appellant, Hardeep Singh, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur that the prosecution purposefully caused delay in conclusion of the trial causing harm to his dignity and reputation. The learned single Judge, who dealt with the matter, did not find any ground to grant compensation. On an appeal being preferred, the Division Bench observed that an expeditious trial ending in acquittal could have restored the appellant’s personal dignity but the State instead of taking prompt steps to examine the prosecution witnesses delayed the trial for five long years. The Division Bench further held there was no warrant for putting the handcuffs on the appellant which adversely affected his dignity. Be it noted, the Division Bench granted compensation of Rs. 70,000/-. Supreme Court, while dealing with the facet of compensation, held thus:-

“Coming, however, to the issue of compensation, we find that in light of the findings arrived at by the Division Bench, the compensation of Rs. 70,000/- was too small and did not do justice to the sufferings and humiliation undergone by the appellant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that a sum of Rs. 2,00,00/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) would be an adequate compensation for the appellant and would meet the ends of justice. We, accordingly, direct the State of Madhya Pradesh to pay to the appellant the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-(rupees Two Lakhs) as compensation. In case the sum of Rs.70,000/- as awarded by the High Court, has already been paid to the appellant, the State would naturally pay only the balance amount of Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lakh thirty thousand)”. In Sube Singh v. State of Haryana (1993) 2 SCC 746 , a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court, after referring to its earlier decisions, has opined as follows: -

“It is thus now well settled that award of compensation against the State is an appropriate and effective remedy for redress of an established infringement of a fundamental right under Article 21, by a public servant. The quantum of compensation will, however, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Award of such compensation (by way of public law remedy) will not come in the way of the aggrieved person claiming additional compensation in a civil court, in enforcement of the private law remedy in tort, nor come in the way of the criminal court ordering compensation under Section 357 of Code of Civil Procedure.” In Nilabati Behera v. State or Orissa (1972) 1 All ER 997, 1006 wherein it has been held thus: -

“A claim in public law for compensation for contravention of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the protection of which is guaranteed in the Constitution, is an acknowledged remedy for enforcement and protection of such rights, and such a claim based on strict liability made by resorting to a constitutional remedy provided for the enforcement of a fundamental right is ‘distinct from, and in addition to, the remedy in private law for damages for the tort’ resulting from the contravention of the fundamental right. The defence of sovereign immunity being inapplicable, and alien to the concept of guarantee of fundamental rights, there can be no question of such a defence being available in the constitutional remedy. It is this principle which justifies award of monetary compensation for contravention of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, when that is the only practicable mode of redress available for the contravention made by the State or its servants in the purported exercise of their powers, and enforcement of the fundamental right is claimed by resort to the remedy in public law under the Constitution by recourse to Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution.” Dr.Mehmood Nayyar Azam vs State Of Chattisgarh And Ors CIVIL APPEAL No. 5703/2012

Against the petitioner cases under Section 110/116 of the Criminal Procedure Code were initiated and thereafter crime No. 15/92 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and crime No. 41/92 under Sections 427 and 379 of the IPC were registered. As the activities gathered further drive and became more pronounced, crime No. 62/90 was registered for an offence punishable under Section 379 of the IPC for alleged theft of electricity. In the said case, the appellant was taken into custody.

Though he was produced before the Magistrate on 22.9.1992 for judicial remand and was required to be taken to Baikunthpur Jail, yet by the time the order was passed, as it was evening, he was kept in the lock up at Manendragarh Police Station. On 24.9.1992, he was required to be taken to jail but instead of being taken to the jail, he was taken to Pondi Police Station at 9.00 a.m. At the police station, he was abused and assaulted. As asseverated, the physical assault was the beginning of ill- treatment. Thereafter, the SHO and ASI, took his photograph compelling him to hold a placard on which it was written :-

“Main Dr. M.N. Azam Chhal Kapti Evam Chor Badmash Hoon”. (I, Dr. M. N. Azam, am a cheat, fraud, thief and rascal"

Subsequently, the said photograph was circulated in general public and even in the revenue proceeding, the respondent No. 5 produced the same. The said atrocities and the torture of the police caused tremendous mental agony and humiliation and, hence, the petitioner submitted a complaint to the National Human Rights Commission . Matter eventually reached Supreme court , the court noticing the mental stress, social humiliation etc of the petitioner and directed :- " Regard being had to the various aspects which we have analysed and taking note of the totality of facts and circumstances, we are disposed to think that a sum of Rs.5.00 lacs (Rupees five lacs only) should be granted towards compensation to the appellant and, accordingly, we so direct. The said amount shall be paid by the respondent State within a period of six weeks and be realized from the erring officers in equal proportions from their salary as thought appropriate by the competent authority of the State. "


bottom of page