Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Arrest Procedure in India
Arrest Procedure in India
Arrest Procedure in India
I have been asked this question many times, “Why do criminals need rights when
they have criminally violated rights of others?” Well, criminal jurisprudence is
based on studies on criminals’ behaviour, impact of crimes on victims, criminals
and society etc.
The primary purposes of criminal law are Deterrence, Retribution and Protection.
Reformation & Rehabilitation are the silent purposes to improve the hues of
society. “Once Criminal, Always Criminal” can’t sustain the test of
reasonableness, wisdom and conscience. All crimes are not same and so aren’t
criminals. Gravity, nature and involvement define which yardstick of
jurisprudential law is to be applied. However, application of yardstick is based on
discretion to be exercised within the limit of State law.
The powers for making an arrest by police are subject to restraints and judicial
supervision and scrutiny to protect the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India of all persons. Imposition of such restraint is clearly the
recognition of rights of the arrested person. Chapter-V of the Criminal Procedure
Act (CrPC) contains provisions relating to arrest of persons, restrains and judicial
supervision & scrutiny.
RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISION REGARDING IMPORTANT RIGHTS
OF AN ARRESTED PERSON:
The burden is on the police officer to satisfy the court before which the arrest is
challenged that he has reasonable ground of suspicion. In exception to the above,
Section 45 of CrPC provides that members of Armed Forces cannot be arrested for
anything done in discharge of official duties, except after obtaining consent of the
central government.
Where a woman is to be arrested, unless the police officer is a female, the police
officer shall not touch the person of the woman for making an arrest and arrest
would be presumed on her submission to custody on oral intimation. After sunset
and before sunrise, no woman can be arrested, except in exceptional circumstances
and upon prior written permission from the local Magistrate.
However, Section 53 & 53A of CrPC provide if there are reasonable grounds for
believing that an examination of arrestee, on a charge of committing rape or other
offence, will afford evidence so as to the commission of such offence, it shall be
lawful to medically examine blood, blood stains, semen, hair samples, finger nail
clippings by use of modern & scientific techniques including DNA and such other
tests, which the medical officer thinks necessary in a particular case, acting at the
request of a police officer.
ix. RIGHT TO FREE LEGAL AID – while after the arrest, a person shall have
the right to consult and to be defended by a counsel of his choice; arrestee shall be
entitled to free legal aid. Apart from ensuring a fair prosecution, a society under
the Rule of law has also a duty to arrange for the defence of the accused, if he is
too poor to do so. Free legal aid to persons of limited means is a service which the
modern State, in particular a welfare state, owes to its citizens (Law Commission
of India, 14th Report, Vol. I, pp 587-600).
Constitutional Preamble guarantees Liberty to each and every citizen of India, but
such is the tragedy of choosing the wrong path that repercussions in the form of
legal action would most certainly follow the deed. Even so, as mentioned earlier,
certain humanely rights have been granted to such a wrongdoer during and post
arrest. These rights, as we see them today, however, did not exist until the various
landmark judgments were passed.
In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa and Ors.; (1993) 2 SCC 746, a three Judge
bench of Supreme Court held, “It is an obligation of the State, to ensure that there
is no infringement of the indefeasible rights of a citizen to life, except in
accordance with law while the citizen is in its custody.
The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be
denied to convicts, under trials or other prisoners in custody, except according to
procedure established by law.
There is a great responsibility on the police or prison authorities to ensure that the
citizen in its custody is not deprived of his right to life. His liberty is in the very
nature of things circumscribed by the very fact of his confinement and therefore his
interest in the limited liberty left to him is rather precious. The duty of care on the
part of the State is strict and admits of no exceptions. The wrongdoer is
accountable and the State is responsible if the person in custody of the police is
deprived of his life except according to the procedure established by law.”
In Joginder Kumar case (supra) the question arose for consideration was,
‘whether the private rights of an individual superseded the protection of society’.
Considering the increase in crime and human rights violations by way of
indiscriminate arrests, the Hon’ble Court sought a way to strike a balance between
the two. It was observed that a realistic approach was essential to the problem.
It was held by a three-judge bench of Supreme Court that an arrest cannot simply
be made because a police officer has been conferred with this particular power.
There remained a difference between the power to arrest and justification for the
exercise of this power.
Mere allegation of an offence is not a reason good enough to make an arrest of the
person. Similarly, a reasonable belief is not enough for a person to be arrested by a
police officer, keeping in mind the constitutional rights granted to the person. It
was also held that Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution should be protected
and recognized.
For the effective enforcement of these fundamental rights, an arrested person being
held in custody is entitled, if he so requests, to have one friend relative or other
person, who is known to him or likely to take an interest in his welfare, be told, as
far as is practicable, that he has been arrested and where is he being detained. An
entry shall be required to be made in the Diary as to who was informed of the
arrest. These protections from power must be held to flow from Articles 21 and
22(1) and enforced strictly.
Further in Joginder Kumar case (supra), the Third Report of National Police
Commission was cited, which mentioned power of arrest as one of the chief
sources of corruption in the police and suggested that a staggering number of
arrests (nearly 60%) were either unnecessary or unjustified and that such
unjustified police action accounted for 43.2% of the expenditure of the jails.
(i) The case involves a grave offence like murder, dacoity, robbery, rape etc., and it
is necessary to arrest the accused and bring his movements under restraint to infuse
confidence among the terror stricken victims.
(ii) The accused is likely to abscond and evade the processes of law.
(iii) The accused is given to violent behavior and is likely to commit further
offences unless his movements are brought under restraint.
(iv) The accused is a habitual offender and unless kept in custody he is likely to
commit similar offences again.”
In another landmark judgment in D.K. Basu (supra) it was held by a 2 Judge bench
of Supreme Court that custodial violence, not excluding torture and death in lock
ups are violative of the Rule of Law.
The Court stated that custodial deaths had to be one of the worst crimes in a
civilized society governed by the Rule of Law. The Supreme Court held that being
in custody did not strip off a person of his Fundamental Rights granted under
Article 21 and only the restrictions permitted by law could be imposed on such a
person.
(i) 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 personnel who handle
interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register.
(ii) That the Police Officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a
memo of the arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least
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.
(iii) 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 the
arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee.
(iv) 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 period of 8 to 12 hours after
the arrest.
(v) The person arrested must be made aware of his right to have someone informed
of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained.
(vi) 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 the next friend of the
person who has been informed of the arrest and the names land particulars of the
police officials in whose custody the arrestee is.
(vii) 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.
(x) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though
not throughout the interrogation.
(xi) 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 Board, it should be
displayed on a conspicuous notice board.