Arrest by police: India
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
Contents |
Arrest, rules and procedures
Arrest should be avoided if accused cooperates in probe : SC
The Supreme Court has said that custodial interrogation should be avoided if the accused cooperates in the probe, as "a great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to arrest". "In cases where the court is of the considered view that the accused has joined the investigation and he is fully cooperating with the investigating agency and is not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial interrogation should be avoided. A great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to arrest. "Arrest leads to many serious consequences not only for the accused but for the entire family and at times for the entire community.
Most people do not make any distinction between arrest at a pre-conviction stage or post-conviction stage," a bench of Justices A K Sikri and R F Nariman said. The bench said while dealing with anticipatory bail plea, the gravity of charge and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended and before arrest, the officer must record valid reasons for the arrest in the case diary. It said once the accused is released on anticipatory bail, it would be unreasonable to compel him to surrender before the trial court and again apply for regular bail. The court made the observation while granting anticipatory bail to an accused in a 17-yearold sexual assault case in which rape charge was framed only in 2014. The bench added that "there is no requirement that the accused must make out a 'special case' for exercise of power to grant anticipatory bail". "A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence," it said. The court, however, made it clear that "no inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail because all circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly visualised for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail". The bench said while dealing with anticipatory bail, the nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before his arrest. "The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice, the possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences," must also be considered, it said.
The apex court said that while considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, "a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to free, fair and full investigation, and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused." It said that reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant should be considered. The bench made the observations while allowing an appeal filed against Gujarat High court's July last year order cancelling anticipatory bail to the accused by a sessions court, noting that the probe was complete and there was no allegation that he may flee the course of justice. "In a matter like this where allegations of rape pertain to the period which is almost 17 years ago and when no charge was framed under section 376 IPC (rape) in the year 2001, and even the prosecutrix did not take any steps for almost 9 years and the charge under section 376 IPC is added only in the year 2014, we see no reason why the appellant should not be given the benefit of anticipatory bail.
Arrest of women
Curbs on arrest of women after sunset only ‘directory’, not mandatory: HC
Sureshkumar k, February 9, 2025: The Times of India
Chennai : Madras HC has clarified that legal restrictions prohibiting the arrest of a woman after sunset and before sunrise are only directory, and not mandatory, in nature.
“There is a laudable reason for incorporating such a provision. It is meant to serve as a note of caution to the officers effecting the arrest of women. While failure to adhere to the statutory requirement may not lead to the arrest being declared illegal, the officer concerned may have to offer an explanation for the inability to comply with the procedure,” a division bench of Justice G R Swaminathan and Justice M Jothiraman said.
The statutory provision is in two parts. It forbids the arrest of women between sunset and sunrise, except in exceptional situations. Even in exceptional situations, prior permission of the jurisdictional magistrate must be obtained. Since the provision does not offer any clue as to what would constitute an exceptional situation, a single judge of the court in “Salma vs the State” framed guidelines governing the arrest of women, the court said. “We are afraid the guidelines merely reiterate the statutory language. They do not appear to shed clear light on the problem that may be faced by the arresting officers tasked with discharging public duty,” the judges said. “We direct the police department to issue further guidelines clarifying what would constitute exceptional situations. Even the state legislature can consider bringing a local amendment to Section 43 of BNS on the lines suggested by Law Commission of India in its 154th report,” it added.
The court then set aside a single judge order directing disciplinary action against Anitha, inspector of police, and Krishnaveni, head constable, for arresting a woman after sunset. The court, however, refused to set aside the order passed against Deepa, sub-inspector of police, for unfair disclosure of facts before the court.
Grounds of arrest to be given to accused
Arrest illegal if grounds not given to accused: SC
AmitAnand Choudhary,February 12, 2025: The Times of India
New Delhi : Supreme Court has ruled that investigating agencies are duty-bound to inform grounds of arrest to the accused while taking them into custody and failure to comply with it would render the arrest illegal. It said the requirement to inform the grounds of arrest is not a “formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement”.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and N K Singh quashed an arrest made by Gurgaon police, saying the accused had not been informed of the grounds of his arrest.
Though the apex court refrained from passing an order on the mode of communication of grounds of arrest, it said it would be better if it was communicated in writing as the burden would be on the police to prove that the grounds of arrest were communicated.
In a concurring but separate order, Justice Singh said the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing is not only to the arrested person, but also to friends, relatives or such other person as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person.
Person arrested on warrant need not be given reason separately: SC
May 27, 2025: The Times of India
New Delhi : Supreme Court has said that when a person is arrested pursuant to a warrant, obligation to separately communicate the grounds of arrest is not needed, as the warrant itself constitutes the grounds for the arrest to be supplied to the arrestee.
“If a person is arrested on a warrant, the grounds for reasons for the arrest is the warrant itself; if the warrant is read over to him, that is sufficient compliance with the requirement that he should be informed of the grounds for his arrest,” a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said. “If he is arrested without a warrant, he must be told why he has been arrested. If he is arrested for committing an offence, he must be told that he has committed a certain offence for which he would be placed on trial. In order to inform him that he has committed a certain offence, he must be told of the acts done by him which amounts to the offence. He must be informed of the precise acts done by him for which he would be tried; informing him merely of the law applicable to such acts would not be enough,” the bench said.
