UN

IVERSITY OF PETROLEUM & ENERGY STUDIES

SCHOOL OF LAW

BA LLB (Hons) Criminal Law

BATCH -2

Semester III

Academic Year: 2019-20 Session -JULY-DECEMBER

PROJECT-1

For

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

TOPIC- RIGHTS OF ARRESTED PERSON

Under the Supervision of: Ms Bharti Nair Khan

Name: Garima Jain, Riya and Utkarsh Soni

SAP ID: 500071373, 500071374, 500070324

Roll No: R154218132, R154218134 and R154218091

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to express our special thanks of gratitude to Ms Bharti Nair Khan for giving us
this opportunity to do research work and learn more about the topic “RIGHTS OF ARRESTED
PERSON it helped us in building our concepts and our doubts were cleared while doing the
research work. We would once again like to thank you for your constant support and guidance. It
really helped us a lot.
 ABSTRACT

The offenders are arrested for the offence they have committed. They are presumed to be
innocent until the case is proven. The rights are given to arrested person after the so called arrest
being taken place. The rights are enshrined under Indian Constitution and also under Criminal
Procedure Code. After the arrest the accused must be guaranteed with rights that which is their
enshrined under the laws. “Arrest” and “custody” are not synonymous terms. In all arrests there
is custody and not otherwise. Arrest consists of seizure or touching of a person’s body with a
view to restrain him, whereas custody consists of submission of a person to the custody by word
or action. The police are empowered under CrPC to arrest a person in both cognizable case and
non-cognizable case. In cognizable case, the police can arrest a person without a warrant from a
competent Magistrate. However, to arrest a person in non-cognizable case, the police have to
obtain a written warrant of arrest from a competent Magistrate under Section 155 CrPC. In this
project the researcher is going to deal with rights of arrested person.

Keywords- Arrest, Custody, Non-cognizable cases, Rights

 SYNOPSIS

Statement of the problem:

This project tends to highlight the rights of arrested person in India that what all right should be
given to a arrested person. The project will also be discussing certain case studies related to
arrested persons right. The topic has been chosen to gain knowledge in depth about the Rights of
arrested person under different sections of Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Survey of the existing literature:

Various books, journals and websites have been gone through in order to make this project:

1. Manupatra

2 .G.K today

3. Indian Kanoon

4. D.K Basu V. State of West Bengal

(1997 (1) SCC 416)

5. Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh

(1994 AIR 1349, 1994 SCC (4) )

Identification of the Issues:

 Definition of Arrest

 How arrest made (Section-46)

 Rights of arrested person

 Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh

 D.K Basu V. State of West Bengal

Objective and scope of the research

The objective of research is to study in depth the concept and applicability of right of arrested
person in India and discuss cases related to it.

With the help of this project the person would get to know the rights of arrested person with the
help of landmark cases like DK Basu V. state of WB and Joginder kumar V state of UP. We are
discussing this topic because of increase in number of custodial violence and death that violates
the fundamental rights of a person under Article 21 i.e. Right to life.

The objective is to find that what are the rights of an arrested person with the help of different
case studies. Also we will be discussing about how arrest is made and definition of arrest that can
make a base for person to understand easily.

Research Methodology Adopted

This is a doctrinal research which involves analysis of case laws and study of legal institutions
like consumer courts through legal reasoning or rational deduction. This type of research is also
known as pure theoretical research as secondary data is taken from books and various websites.

Probable Outcome

After the project, the author will be able to deduce about the topic in detail. They will be able to
state that what are rights of a arrested and their importance and usage. By the end of the project
the author will also be able to analyse the given topic in depth.
 CONTENT

 Introduction

 How arrest made

 Rights of arrested person

 Right to silence
 Right to know the grounds of arrest
 Information regarding the right to be released on bail
 Right to be taken before magistrate without delay
 Right of not being detained for more than 24hrs without judicial scrunitiny
 Right at trial
Right to Fair trial
Right to Speedy trial
 Right to consult a legal practitioner
 Right of free legal aid
 Right to be examined by a medical practitioner
 Right of accused to produce an evidence

 Case studies

 Joginder Kumar V. State of UP

 D.K Basu V. state of WB

 Conclusion
 INTRODUCTION

Definition of Arrest

 “A seizure or forcible restraint; an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her
liberty; the taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, especially, in
response to a criminal charge.” [Legal Dictionary by Farlex]

 The purpose of the arrest is to bring the arrestee before a court without any delay or
otherwise secure the administration of law. An arrest serves the function to notifying the
society that an individual has been accused of crime and also may admonish and deter the
arrested person from committing other crimes in future. Arrests can be made on both civil
charges and criminal charges, although civil arrest is a drastic measure that is been not
looked upon with favor by the court. The federal Constitution imposes limits on both
criminal and civil arrests.

ARREST HOW MADE

Section 46 of Criminal Procedure Code –

1. In making an arrest the police officer or other person making the same shall touch or confine
the body of the person to be arrested unless there be a submission to the custody by word or
action.

2.   If such person forcibly resists the endeavor to arrest him, or attempts to evade the arrest, such
police officer or another person may use all means necessary to effect the arrest.

3.   Nothing in this section gives a right to cause the death of a person who is not accused of an
offense punishable with death or with imprisonment for life.
 4. Save in exceptional circumstances, no woman shall be arrested after sunset and before
sunrise, and where such exceptional circumstances exist, the woman police officer shall, by
making a written report, obtain the prior permission of the Judicial Magistrate of the first class
within whose local jurisdiction the offense is committed or the arrest is to be made.]{Ins. by Act
25 of 2005, S. 6 (w.e.f 23-6-2006)}

RIGHTS OF ARRESTED PERSON

The benefit of the presumption of innocence of the accused until the time he is found guilty at
the ending of a trial substantiated with evidence is one of the basic tenets of our legal system. It
is a characteristic of our democratic society that even the rights of the accused are deemed to be
introspected and sacrosanct, and even though he is charged with an offense however that does
not render him as an inhuman or a non-person. Our statute is quite careful towards anyone’s
“personal liberty” and hence without any cruel intentions it doesn’t permit the detention of any
person without proper legal sanction.

It is provided by article 21 of Indian constitution that there will be no such person who shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law
under constitution of India. The procedure laid down by this article must be followed in a ‘right,
just and fair’ and not in any arbitrary, imaginative or oppressive manner. It is expected that the
arrest should not only be legal but justified also. Even the Constitution of India recognizes the
rights of an arrested person under the Fundamental Rights under constitution of India.

Hence, the accused has been provided with certain rights under the law and the general rationale
behind these rights is that the government has conferred enormous resources for the prosecution
of individuals’, and therefore accused are entitled to some protection from misuse of those
powers by the government.

Consequently, the accused has vested in him certain rights during the course of any
investigation; inquiry or trial of an offense with which he is charged and hence, he should be
protected against any form of an arbitrary or illegal arrest. It is to be noted that no arrest can be
formed on the basis of mere suspicion or information. No matter how much the degree of
suspicion is or however impeachable it is, no private person is allowed to follow and arrest a
person on the statement of another even private person cannot follow and arrest a person on the
statement of another person.

1. Right to remain silence:

The ‘right to silence’ has its origin from common law principles. So in general sense, the courts
or tribunals should not conclude that the person is guilty of any conduct merely because he was
not responding to questions that were raised by the police or by the court. Even the Justice
Malimath Committee in its report opinion that right to silence is a much-needed concept in
societies where anyone can arbitrarily be held guilty of any charge. The right to silence revolves
around confession basically. Also since according to the law of evidence, any statement or
confession made to a police officer is not admissible in a court of law, it needs to be observed
that in case the accused confesses in front of the magistrate then such confession should be
voluntary.
Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India guarantees every person the right against self-
incrimination, and it has been stated under this article that no person, who has been accused of an
offense, shall be compelled to act as a witness against himself. This same rule has been reiterated
by a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Nandini Sathpathy v. P.L.Dani and it was held by
the court in this case that no one can forcibly extract any statement from the accused and no
matter what, the accused has the sole right of being silent during the course of investigation and
interrogation.
It was held by the Supreme Court again in the year 2010 that Narcotic-analysis, brain mapping,
and lie detector test are in violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and that by
administration of these tests, forcible intrusion into a person’s mind is being conducted which
further nullifies the validity and legitimacy of this right.

2. Right to Know the Grounds of Arrest

1. According to Section 50(1) of Cr.P.C an accused who is being arrested by any police officer,
without any warrant, has the right to know the full particulars of offence for which he is being
arrested, and so it’s the undeniable duty of the police officer to inform the accused of the
particulars.
2. Under section 55 of Cr.P.C, it is the right of the accused to know in case of being arrested, the
written order against him, specifying the offense or other cause for which the arrest is being
made. The arrest will be illegal in case of non-compliance with this provision.
3. In case when the person is being arrested under a warrant, then according to Section 75 of
Cr.P.C, any person who is executing such a warrant must notify the person who is being arrested,
the content of such warrant, or show the warrant if required. If under any circumstance the
substance of the warrant is not notified, the arrest would be unlawful.
4. The constitution of India recognizes this as a fundamental right also. Under Article 22(2) of
the constitution, it has been said that person who is arrested shall not be detained in custody
without being informed as soon as possible of the grounds for which such arrest nor shall he be
denied the right to consult, and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.
The rules regarding this were upheld in the cases of Joginder Singh vs. State of U.P. and D.K.
Basu vs. State of West Bengal, that it is mandatory under Section 50-A on the part of the police
officer to not only inform the friend or relative of the arrested person about his arrest etc. but also
to make an entry about the same in the register maintained by the police. It is the duty of the
magistrate to satisfy himself about the compliance of the police in this regard.
Informing regarding the right to be released on bail
It is to be seen that any person who is to be arrested without a warrant and who is accused of a
bailable offense that he be informed by the police officer about his right regarding to release on
bail by payment of the surety amount.  

3. Information Regarding the Right to Be Released On Bail

Section 50(2) Cr.P.C. provides that “where a police officer arrests without warrant any person
other than a person accused of a non- bailable offense, he shall inform the person arrested that he
is entitled to be released in bail that he may arrange for sureties on his.” This will certainly be of
help to persons who may not know about their rights to be released on bail in case of bailable
offenses. As a consequence, this provision may in some small measures, improve the relations of
the people with the police and reduce discontent against them.
4. Right of an arrested person to be taken before a magistrate without delay.

It is the duty of the authorized person making an arrest that the arrested person be bought before
a judicial officer without any unnecessary delay, no matter how the arrest is made with or
without a warrant. Along with this provision it has to be seen that the arrested person should be
taken and confined in a police station only and no other place. The same has been stated in
section 56 and 76 of Cr.P.C.
Section 56 of Cr.P.C. states that the person who is arrested is required to be taken before a
magistrate or officer in charge of the police station. Also in cases where the police officer makes
an arrest without warrant, then in such case, the arrested person shall be taken to the magistrate
with competent jurisdiction or before the in charge of the police station without any delay.
Section 76 of Cr.P.C. states that the arrested person needs to be bought before the court without
any unnecessary delay. In accordance with the provisions of section 71 in regard to the police
officer or other person executing a warrant of arrest, they shall without unnecessary delay and
due to security purposes bring the person arrested before the Court before which he is required
by law to produce such person.
It has also been mentioned in the provision of Section 76 that in any case that such delay shall
not exceed 24 hours. In the process of calculating the time period of 24 hours, the time necessary
for the journey is to be excluded. The reason behind creating this right is to eliminate the
possibility of police officials from extracting confessions or compelling a person to give
information.

5. Right of Not Being Detained For More Than 24 Hours without Judicial Scrutiny
Whether the arrest is without a warrant or under a warrant, the arrested person must be brought
before the magistrate or court within 24 hours. Section 57 provides as follows:
57. Person arrested not to be detained more than twenty-four hours- No police officer shall detain
in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances
of the case is reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a special order of a
Magistrate under section 167, exceed twenty-four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the
journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s Court.
This right has been further strengthened by its incorporation in the Constitution as a fundamental
right. Article 22(2) of the Constitution proves that “Every person who is arrested and detained in
custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of
such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of
the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without
the authority of a magistrate.” In case of arrest under a warrant, the proviso to Section 76
provides a similar rule in substance.

The right to be brought before a magistrate within a period of not more than 24 hours of arrest
has been created with a view-
i. To prevent arrest and detention for the purpose of extracting confessions, or as a means of
compelling people to give information;
ii. To prevent police stations being used as though they were prisons- a purpose for which they
are unsuitable;
iii. To afford an early recourse to a judicial officer independent of the police on all questions of
bail or discharge.
In a case of Khatri (II) v. the State of Bihar, the Supreme Court has strongly urged upon the state
and its police authorities to ensure that this constitutional and legal requirement to produce an
arrested person before a Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours of the arrest be scrupulously
observed. This healthy provision enables the magistrate to keep a check over the police
investigation and it is necessary that the magistrates should try to enforce this requirement and
where it is found disobeyed, come heavily upon the police.
If a police officer fails to produce an arrested person before a magistrate within 24 hours of the
arrest, he shall be held guilty of wrongful detention.
In a case of Poovan v. Sub- Inspector of Police it was said that whenever a complaint is received
by a magistrate that a person is arrested within his jurisdiction but has not been produced before
him within 24 hours or a complaint was made to him that a person is being detained within his
jurisdiction beyond 24 hours of his arrest, he can and should call upon the police officer
concerned; to state whether the allegations are true and if so; on what and under whose custody;
he is being so helped. If an officer denies the arrest, the magistrate can make an inquiry into the
issue and pass appropriate orders.
7. Right at Trial

Right to a Fair Trial-

Constitution under Article 14 guarantees the right to equality before the law. The Code of
Criminal Procedure also provides that for a trial to be fair, it must be an open court trial.
This provision is designed to ensure that convictions are not obtained in secret. In some
exceptional cases, the trial may be held in camera. Every accused is entitled to be
informed by the court before taking the evidence that he is entitled to have his case tried
by another court and if the accused subsequently moves such an application for transfer
of his case to another court the same must be transferred. However, the accused has no
right to select or determine by which another court the case is to be tried.

Right to a Speedy Trial-

Constitution provides an accused the right to a speedy trial. Although this right is not
explicitly stated in the constitution, it has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in the judgment of Hussainara Khatoon. This judgment mandates that an
investigation in the trial should be held “as expeditiously as possible”. In all summons
trials (cases where the maximum punishment is two years imprisonment) once the
accused has been arrested, the investigation for the trial must be completed within six
months or stopped on an order of the Magistrate, unless the Magistrate receives and
accepts, with his reasons in writing, that there is cause to extend the investigation
 

8. Right to Consult a Legal Practitioner

It is the right of every arrested person to consult a legal practitioner of his own choice. This has
also been enshrined as a fundamental right in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which is
undeniable in all cases. Section 50(3) of the Code also states that the person against whom
proceedings are initiated has a right to be defended by a pleader of his choice. This right begins
as soon as the person is arrested. 
9. Rights of Free Legal Aid:
The Supreme Court in the case of in Khatri (II) v. the State of Bihar held that the state is under a
constitutional obligation as is implicit in article 21 of the constitution as well to provide free
legal aid to an indigent accused person. It is important to note the fact that this right starts at the
time of trial and continues until the accused is produced the first time before the magistrate and
also when remanded from time to time. The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of
this right by stating that that failure on the part of the state to inform the accused of this right will
vitiate the whole process of trial. Therefore, it is a binding duty imposed on all magistrates and
courts to inform the indigent accused of his right to get free legal aid. The apex court has taken a
step further in Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, wherein it has laid down that
this constitutional right cannot be denied if the accused failed to apply for it.

10. Right to Be Examined By a Medical Practitioner:

Section 54 of Cr.P.C. enumerates this right and it states that examination of arrested person by
medical practitioner at the request of the arrested person. When an arrested person, whether on a
charge or otherwise alleges at the time when he is produced before a Magistrate or at any time
for which he is detained in custody that the examination of his body will afford evidence which
will lead to disproving the commission of offense by him or which will establish the committing
of offense by any other person against his body, the Magistrate shall, direct the examination of
the body of such person by a registered medical practitioner. The Magistrate needs to rely on his
better judgment to see that the request is not made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for
defeating the ends of justice.

11. Right of the Accused to Produce an Evidence

The accused even has the right to produce witnesses in his defense in case of the police report or
private defense. After the examination and cross-examination of all prosecution witnesses i.e.
after the completion of the prosecution case, the accused shall be called upon to enter upon his
defense and any written statement put in shall be filled with the record. He may even call further
for cross-examination. The judge shall go on recording the evidence of prosecution witness until
the prosecution closes its evidence.
The accused in order to test the veracity of the testimony of a prosecution witness has the right to
cross-examine him. Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 gives the accused has a right
to confront only witnesses. This right ensures that the accused has the opportunity for cross-
examination of the adverse witness. Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act tells when the witness
is unavailable at trial, a testimonial statement of the witness may be dispensed by issuing a
commission. The testimony at a formal trial is one example of prior testimonial statements which
can be used as documentary evidence in a subsequent trial.
When in the course of the investigation an accused or any other person desiring to make any
statement is brought to a magistrate so that any confession or statement that he may be deposed
to make of his free will is recorded. Confession statements by accused to the police are
absolutely excluded under Section 25, Evidence.
 
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal

The frequent instances of the police atrocities and custodial violence and deaths have promoted
the Supreme Court to have the review of its decisions like Nilabati Behera, Joginder Kumar etc.
Therefore, the Supreme Court gave in the accompanying requirements to be followed in all cases
of arrest or detention till the legal provisions are made in that favour as preventive measures.

1. The police officer carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation and examination of the
arrestee should bear accurate, clear and visible identification and name tags with their
designation. The particulars of all such police officer who handle interrogation of arrestee must
be recorded in a register or shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as
the state government may prescribe in his behalf .(Section-41(b))

2. That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the accused shall prepare a memo of arrest at
time of arrest and such memo should be attested by at least one witness, who may be either a
friend or member of the family of the arrestee or any respectable person of the locality from
where arrest is made. It should also be countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time
and date when arrest was made.

3. A person who is arrested or detained and is being held in the custody in a interrogation centre
or police station or other lock-ups shall be entitled to have one relative or friend or other person
known to him or having any interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as he has been
arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of memo of
arrest is himself such a relative or a friend of the arrestee.(Section-50(A))

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

5. The arrestee must be made aware of this rights to have someone informed of his arrest or
about detention as soon as he is been put under arrest or is detained.
6. An entry must be made in the diary or the record book at the place of detention or in which the
arrested person has be taken regarding the arrest of the person which shall also be disclose the
name of the next friend or relative of the person who has been informed of arrest and the names
and the particulars of the police officers in whose custody the arrestee is.

7. The arrestee should, where he requests, be also examined at the time of arrest and minor and
major injuries, if any, present on his/her body, should be recorded at that time only. The
“Inspection Memo” must be signed by both arrestee and the police officer effecting arrest and its
copy provided to the arrestee. (Section-53)

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

9. Copies of all the document including memo of arrest, referred to above, should be sent to the
Magistrate who has the jurisdiction of the case for his record.

10. The arrestee must be permitted to meet his lawyer of his own choice during interrogation and
examination, though not throughout the interrogation.

11. A police control room should be made in all Districts and State headquarters, where
informations regarding the arrest and the place of the custody of the arrested person shall be
communicated by the Officer making the arrest, within 12hrs of effecting the arrest and at police
control room it should be displayed on the conspicuous notice board.(Section-41(C))

The Court stressed that the inability to follow the said necessities should separated from
rendering the concerned authority at risk for departmental activity, likewise render him obligated
to be rebuffed for scorn of Court and the procedures for hatred of Court might be initiated in any
High Court of the nation, having regional ward over the issue. The prerequisites stream from
Articles 21 and Article 22 (1) of the Constitution and should be carefully pursued. The
necessities are notwithstanding the sacred and statutory protects and don't take away from
different bearings given by the Courts every once in a while regarding the shielding of the rights
and pride of the arrestee.

Joginder Kumar V. State of Uttar Pradesh

Hon’ble Apex Court deliberated various provisions and reports in fact and expressed that no
arrest can be made since it is lawful for the police officer to execute so. The existence of the
power to arrest is one thing & justification for the implement of it is another thing. The
police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his rights to do so.

Arrest and imprisonment in police lock-up of a human being can result indeterminable injury to
the status and self-esteem of a human being. No arrest can be made in a daily method on a mere
claim of commission of an offence made against a human being. It would be judicious for a
police officer in the regard of preservation of the constitutional rights of a citizen and may be in
his own engrossment that no arrest should be made without a sensible gratification reached after
some investigation as to the truthfulness and bona fides of a complaint and a sensible belief both
as to the person’s involvement and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Refusing a person of
his liberty is a important affair.

The advices of the Police Commission merely send back the constitutional attendants of the
fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. A human being is not accountable to arrest
merely on the intuition of collusion in an offence. There must be some causable justification in
the opinion of the officer resulting the arrest that such arrest is mandatory and clarified. Except
in heinous offences, an arrest must be neglected if a police officer issues notice to person to
attend the Station House and not to leave the Station without permission would do.

These rights are intrinsic in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and need to be
acknowledge and honestly secured. For effective enforcement of these fundamental rights,
Hon’ble Court issued the following guidelines:
1. An arrested human being held in custody is allowed, if he so appeals to have one friend,
relative or other person who is known to him or likely to take an interest in his well-fare told as
far as is practicable that he has been arrested and where he is being delayed.

2. The police officer shall inform the arrested person when he is brought to the police station.

3. An entry shall be necessary to be done in the diary as to who was informed of the arrest. These
protections from rights must be held to flow from Articles 21 and 22(1) and enforced strictly.

It was further directed that, it shall be the responsibility of the Magistrate, before whom the
arrested person is produced, to satisfy himself that these necessities have been complied with.

CONCLUSION

It is generally believed that in spite of various safeguards in the CRPC. as well as in the
Constitution, the power of arrest given to the Police was being used and is being misused till this
day. It is also believed that the police often uses their position of power to threaten the arrested
person and take advantage of their position or office to extort money. There have also been
innumerable reports on custodial violence and deaths that lead people and the law makers to
believe that deprivation of basic rights of the arrested persons has become common place
nowadays.

The Mallimath Committee in its Report on reforms in the Criminal Justice System has stated that
the accused or arrested person has the right to know the rights given to him under the law and
how to enforce such rights. There have also been criticism that the police fail to inform the rights
to person arrested of the charge which has been put against them and hence, let the arrested
persons flounder in the custody, in complete ignorance of their alleged crimes. This is been
attributed to the colonial nature of our Criminal Justice System where duty of arrest was thrust
upon the Indian officers only while the Britishers drew up the charges against the accused. Thus,
it is entirely possible that English origins of the Indian Criminal Justice system have resulted
unwittingly in the rights of the arrested person falling through the cracks.
There is imminent need to bring in some changes in Criminal Justice Administration so that the
state should recognize that its primary duty is not to punish, but is to socialize and reform the
wrongdoer and above all of it should be clearly understood that the socialization is not identical
with punishments, for its comprises care, prevention, education and rehabilitation within the
framework of the social defence. Thus, in the end we fund out that Rule of law regulates the
functionary of every organ of state machinery including the agencies responsible for conducting
prosecution and the investigation which must confine itself within the four corners of the law.

It is the duty of police to protect the rights of society. It should be remembered that this society
include all people, including the arrested people. Thus, it is still the duty of police to protect the
rights of the arrested person. Hence, in light of discussed provisions, a police officer must make
sure that the handcuffs are not used unnecessarily, that the accused is not harassed needlessly or
unnecessarily, that the arrested person should made aware of the grounds of his arrest, informed
that whether he is entitled to bail and of course produced before a Magistrate within 24hrs of his
arrest.