Arrest of Persons

Meaning of Arrest: The word arrest has neither been defined in the code nor in the IPC nor in any other enactment dealing with criminal offences. Simply speaking, Arrest means apprehension of a person by legal authority resulting in deprivation of his liberty. Every confinement is not arrest, for arrest legal authority is essential. For instance, when a police officer apprehends a thief he is arresting the thief; but when a dacoit apprehends a person with a view to extract ransom, the dacoit is not arresting that person but wrongfully confining him. Further, every compulsion or physical restraint is not arrest but when the restraint is total and deprivation of liberty is complete, that would amount to arrest. An arrest implies the actual seizure or touching of the person with a view to keep him in detention. Arrest of a person is made with a view to ensure his presence at trial in connection with any offences in which he is directly or indirectly involved. In case of serious offences, arrests are often made. But in ordinary cases, which are not of serious nature the accused person is normally called to the police station through, summon to answer certain questions and thereafter there presence is ensured at the trial of the case too. Credible information and a reasonable suspicion: Information upon which arrest may be made by a police officer must be based upon definite facts. The police officer must consider over all materials placed before him in support of arrest before taking final decision in this respect. Where a wrong arrest is made by a police officer under a bona fide mistake he will be protected and an illegal arrest does not affect the trial of the case. Similarly where an arrest is made on mere suspicion, it must be reasonable and in such cases investigation should be carried out by the police without delay. Magistrate must also be watchful, for this power is very likely to be abused by the police. (Shahadat Khan, AIR 1965 Trip 27). Whether there are reasonable grounds for suspicion will depend upon the circumstances in each case. If a person is suspected to be in possession of stolen clothes and he fails to answer satisfactorily, it would be a reasonable ground for suspicion justifying his arrest. (Kasturi Lal v. State of U.P, AIR 1965 SC 1039.) But mere suspicion would not be enough, it must be reasonable. (Faish Mian v. Tripura Administration, (1962) Cr LJ 673.)

In State of Maharshtra v. C.C.W. Council of India (2004) Cri.L.J. 14 (S.C.), the High Court by an order prevented the police from arresting a lady without the presence of Lady Constable. And further prohibited the arrest of lady after sunset & before sunrise under any circumstances. Difference between Arrest and Custody: The word Arrest and Custody are not synonymous. In every arrest there is custody but vice versa is not true. What amounts to arrest is laid down by the legislature in Section 46. Whether the arrest to be made is with a warrant or without the warrant, it is necessary that in making such an arrest the police officer or other person making the same actually touches or confines the body of the person to be arrested unless there be a submission to custody by word or action. (Roshan Beevi v. Jt. Secy. To Government of T.N., 1984 Cri LJ 134 Mad) Arrest is a mode of formally taking a person in police custody. Whereas 'custody' merely denotes surveillance or restriction on the movement of the person concerned. A person may be taken in custody completely or even partially. The concept of being in custody is, therefore, different from that of a formal arrest. Thus, it would be seen that in every arrest there is custody but the converse is not true and as such, arrest and custody are not synonymous terms. Purpose of Arrest: Arrest of a person might be necessary under the following circumstances: (1) To secure the attendance of an accused person at trial. -When a person is to be tried on the charge of some crime, his attendance at the time of trial becomes necessary. If his attendance is not likely to be ensured by issuing a notice or summons to him, probably his arrest and detention is the only effective method of securing his presence at the trial. (2) As a preventive or precautionary measure. -If there is imminent danger of the commission of a serious crime (cognizable offence), arrest of the person intending to commit such a crime may become necessary as a preventive measure. There may be other circumstances where it is necessary as a precautionary measure to arrest a habitual offender or an ex-convict, or a person found under suspicious circumstances. (3) For obtaining correct name and address. -Where a person, on being asked by a police officer, refuses to give his name and address, then under certain circumstances, it would be proper on the part of the police to arrest such a person with a view to ascertain his correct name and address. (4) For removing obstruction to police. -Whoever obstructs a police officer in the execution of his duty would be and should be liable to be arrested then and there by such a police officer. This is essential for the effective discharge of police duties.

(5) For retaking a person escaped from custody. -A person who has escaped from lawful custody should be arrested forthwith by the police? It would be seen that the Code contemplates two types of arrests: (a) Arrest made in pursuance of a warrant issued by a magistrate; and (b) Arrest made without such a Warrant but made in accordance with some legal provision permitting such an arrest.

Arrest with Warrant Ss. 70 to 81 Arrest how made Ss. 46,47, 48, 49, 55, 60

Arrest without Warrant Ss. 41, 42, 43, 44, 45

After Arrest Procedures Ss. 51, 52, 53, 53A, 54A, 58, 59 Right of arrested person Ss. 50, 50A, 54, 55A, 56, 57 Consequences of non-compliance with Provisions relating to arrest
6.4 Arrest with warrant: There are some circumstances in which arrest of a person is essential or at least desirable. The determination as to the existence of such circumstances and the consequent decision to arrest should be made fairly having due regard to the liberty of the individual and the interests of the society. Ideally a judicial officer is best suited to decide such issues with a fair measure of reasonableness, impartiality and detachment. Therefore, basically it is for a magistrate to make an arrest decision on the information generally obtained from the police or the complainant. If the magistrate makes a decision to arrest he would issue a warrant of arrest. Sections. 70 to 81 deals with the provisions of arrest with warrant. The provisions relating to arrest with warrant will be discussed under Chapter Processes to Compel Appearance.

6.5 Arrest without warrant: Sometimes, there might be circumstances where prompt and immediate arrest is necessary and there is no time to approach a magistrate and obtain a warrant from him. For instance, in a case where a person has perpetrated a serious crime and there is chance of the person absconding unless immediately arrested, it would be certainly unwise to insist on the arrest being made only after obtaining a warrant from a magistrate. There may be occasions where preventive action may be necessary in order to avert the danger of sudden outbreak of crime. In those cases, often the arrest decision will have to be made by a person other than a judicial magistrate. In such cases it is the investigating agency that has discretion to effect arrests. In all such cases arrests can be made by the investigating agency, however, the Code contemplates a judicial scrutiny soon after such arrest. According to the Code, every person arrested without a warrant is required to be produced before the judicial magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest (Sections 56 & 57 of Cr.P.C. and Art. 22(2) of the Constitution of India). The police are reported to have been flouting this legal requirement quite often. In the case of Poovan v. S.I. of Police, 1993 Cr.LJ 2183, the Kerala High Court ruled that whenever a complaint is received by a magistrate that a person has been arrested within his jurisdiction but has not been produced before him within 24 hours or a complaint is 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 held. If the officer denies the arrest the magistrate can make an inquiry and pass appropriate orders.

An arrest without warrant can be effected under the Code by

A Police Officer (Sections 41, & 42)

A Private Person (Section 43)

A Magistrate (Section 44)

A Custodian or Rescuer (Section 60)

Under following circumstances a person may be arrested without warrant. 6.5.1 A police officer may arrest without a warrant (Sec 41)

(1) Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person(a) who commits, in the presence of a police officer, a cognizable offence; (b) against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence 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, if the following conditions are satisfied, namely: (i) the police officer has reason to believe on the basis of such complaint, information, or suspicion that such person has committed the said offence; (ii) the police officer is satisfied that such arrest is necessary(a) to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or (b) for proper investigation of the offence; or (c) to prevent such person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or (d) to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to the police officer; or (e) as unless such person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured; and the police officer shall record while making such arrest, his reasons in writing; Provided that a police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of this sub-section, record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest. (ba) against whom credible information has been received that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to more than seven years whether with or without fine or with death sentence and the police officer has reason to believe on the basis of that information that such person has committed the said offence; (c) who has been proclaimed as an offender either under this Code or by order of the State Government; or (d) in whose possession anything is found which may reasonably be suspected to be stolen property and who may reasonably be suspected of having committed an offence with reference to such thing; or (e) who obstructs a police officer while in the execution of his duty, or who has escaped, or attempts to escape, from lawful custody; or (f) who is reasonably suspected of being a deserter from any of the Armed Forces of the Union; or

(g) who has been concerned in, or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his having been concerned in, any act committed at any place out of India which, if committed in India, would have been punishable as an offence, and for which he is, under any law relating to extradition, or otherwise, liable to be apprehended or detained in custody in India; or (h) who, being a released convict, commits a breach of any rule made under sub-section (5) of section 356; or (i) for whose arrest any requisition, whether written or oral, has been received from another police officer, provided that the requisition specifies the person to be arrested and the offence or other cause for which the arrest is to be made and it appears therefrom that the person might lawfully be arrested without a warrant by the officer who issued the requisition. (2) Subject to the provisions of Section 42, no person concerned in a non cognizable offence or against whom a complaint has been made or credible information has been received or reasonable suspicion exists of his having so concerned, shall be arrested except under a warrant or order of a Magistrate. Thus, Section 41(1) enumerates ten categories of offences where a police officer may arrest any person without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant. The word may in S.41 (1) suggests that a police officer has discretion in making arrest without warrant. In the case of Binoy Jacob v. CBI, 1993 Cri LJ 1293, the Delhi High Court held that in a country governed by rule of law the discretion of the investigating agency does not mean whim, fancy or wholly arbitrary exercise of discretion. The Magistrate, therefore, has to be watchful as the power of arrest without warrant under suspicion is liable to be abused. This section is a depositary of general powers of the police officer to arrest but this power is subject to certain other provisions contained in the Code as well as in the special statute to which the Code is made applicable. If Sec. 155(2) prohibits a police officer from investigating a non-cognizable offence without an order of the Magistrate then in respect of such an offence a police officer cannot exercise the powers contained in Sec. 4l(1)(d) [Avinash v State, 1983 CrLJ 1833 (Bom.)]. Information upon which arrest may be made by a police officer must be based upon definite facts. The police officer must consider over all materials placed before him in support of arrest before taking final decision in this respect. Where a wrong arrest is made by a police officer under a bona fide mistake he will be protected and an illegal arrest does not affect the trial of the case. Similarly where an arrest is made on mere suspicion, it must be reasonable and in such cases investigation should be carried out by the police without delay. Magistrate must also be watchful, for this power is very likely to be abused by the police.

[Shahadat Khan, AIR 1965 Trip 27]. Whether there are reasonable grounds for suspicion will depend upon the circumstances in each case. If a person is suspected to be in possession of stolen clothes and he fails to answer satisfactorily, it would be a reasonable ground for suspicion justifying his arrest. [Kasturi Lal v. State of U.P, AIR 1965 SC 1039]. But mere suspicion would not be enough, it must be reasonable. [Faish Mian v. Tripura Administration, (1962) Cr LJ 673]. Section 41: - Section 41(1) of Cr.P.C. provides for ten clauses of persons who may be arrested by the police without warrant. Cases where a police officer may arrest a person without warrant are specified in Schedule I of the Code. Sec. 41 is not exhaustive. There are various other Acts, e.g. Arms Act, Explosives Act, etc. which also confers such powers on police officers

6.5.1.(a) Notice of appearance before police officer (Sec 41-A) (1) The police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 41, issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice. (2) Where such a notice is issued to any person, it shall be the duty of that person to comply with the terms of the notice. (3) Where such person complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officers is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested. (4) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may, subject to such orders as may have been passed by a competent court in this behalf, arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice. 6.5.1.(b) Procedure of arrest and duties of officer making arrest (Sec 41-B) Every police officer while making an arrest shall (a) bear an accurate, visible and clear identification of his name which will facilitate easy identification; (b) prepare a memorandum of arrest which shall be(i) attested by at least one witness, who is a member of the family of the person arrested or a respectable member of the locality where the arrest is made; (ii) countersigned by the person arrested; and (c) inform the person arrested, unless the memorandum is attested by a member of his family, that he has a right to have a relative or a friend named by him to be informed of his arrest.

6.5.1.(c) Control room at districts (Sec 41-C) (l) The State Government shall establish a police control room (a) in every district; and (b) at State level. (2) The State Government shall cause to be displayed on the notice board kept outside the control rooms at every district, the names and addresses of the persons arrested and the name and designation of the police officers who made the arrests. (3) The control room at the Police Headquarters at the State level shall collect from time to time, details about the persons arrested, nature of the offence with which they are charged and maintain a database for the information of the general public. 6.5.1.(d) Right of arrested person to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation. (Sec 41-D) When any person is arrested and interrogated by the police, he shall be entitled to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation, though not throughout interrogation. New Sections 41-A, 41-B, 41-C, and 41-D have been inserted and amended by the Cr.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2008 (5 of 2009) and the Cr.P.C. (Amendment) Act, (41 of 2010) respectively. 6.5.2 Arrest on refusal to give name and residence (Sec 42)

(1) When any person who, in the presence of a police officer, has committed or has been accused of committing a non-cognizable offence refuses, on demand of such officer, to give his name and residence or gives a name or residence which such officer has reason to believe to be false, he may be arrested by such officer in order that his name or residence may be ascertained. (2) When the true name and residence of such person have been ascertained, he shall be released on his executing a bond, with or without sureties, to appear before a Magistrate if so required: Provided that, if such person is not resident in India, the bond shall be secured by a surety or sureties resident in India. (3) Should the true name and residence of such person not be ascertained within twenty-four hours from the time of arrest or should he fail to execute the bond, or, if so required, to furnish sufficient sureties, he shall forthwith be forwarded to the nearest Magistrate having jurisdiction. Under this Section the arrest is to be made for the purpose of ascertaining the name or residence; and after such ascertainment the arrestee must be released on executing a bond (with or without sureties) before a Magistrate if so required.

In one case, a police constable asked a man not to create any disturbance on a public road. When the man declined to do so, the constable demanded his name and address, which were not furnished. Thereupon, the constable arrested the man. It has been held that, in the circumstances, the constable had lawfully exercised his powers under this section [Goolab Rasul (1903) 5 Bom LR 597]. However, when two police officers arrested a man without a warrant, for being drunk and creating disturbance on a public road, and confined him in the police station, although one of the police officers knew his name and address, held that the police officers' action was not justified [Gopal Naidu (1922) 46 Mad 605]. Section 42: - Section 42 provides for arrest of a person if he refuses to disclose his identity & if he is suspected to be one of the offenders. But such person must be released on bail after securing a bond if he is suspected to having committed a non-cognizable offence. 6.5.3 Arrest by Private person and procedure on such arrest (Sec. 43) (1) Any private person may arrest or cause to be arrested any person who in his presence commits a non-bailable and cognizable offence, or any proclaimed offender, and, without unnecessary delay, shall make over or cause to be made over any person so arrested to a police officer, or, in the absence of a police officer, take such person or cause him to be taken in custody to the nearest police station. (2) If there is reason to believe that such person comes under the provisions of section 41, a police officer shall re-arrest him. (3) If there is reason to believe that he has committed a non-cognizable offence, and he refuses on the demand of a police officer to give his name and residence, or gives a name or residence which such officer has reason to believe to be false, he shall be dealt with under the provisions of section 42; but if there is no sufficient reason to believe that he has committed any offence, he shall be at once released. Under S. 43, a private person can arrest any person, who has in his presence, committed a non-bailable and cognizable offence, or any person who is a proclaimed offender. This right of arrest arises under the common law, which applies, to India. Thus, if a person is drunk and disorderly and is assaulting others he can rightly be arrested by a private citizen under this section [Ramaswami Ayyar AIR 1921 Mad 458]. It cannot be argued that this section applies only to those cases when the offence committed in the presence of the private person is a substantive offence, and that this power is not available when there is merely an attempt to commit an offence. Further, an arrest is justified even if the private person is under a bona fide impression that a non-bailable and cognizable offence, as for instance, abduction of a girl, is being committed in his presence, although it may turn out subsequently that the case is not one of abduction [Anant Prasad, 27 Cr LJ 1378].

However, the words "in his presence" in Sec. 43(1) cannot be extended to mean "in his opinion" or "on suspicion" or "on receipt of information". Where, therefore, an individual seeing a person fleeing with a knife in his hand pursued by others, tries to arrest him, his exercise of power of arrest cannot be brought under this section [Abdul Habib v. State, 1974 Cr LJ 248]. After making an arrest, the person arresting must take the arrestee to the police, otherwise he would be guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement.

6.5.4 Arrest by Magistrate (Sec 44) (1) When any offence is committed in the presence of a Magistrate, whether Executive or Judicial, within his local jurisdiction, he may himself arrest or order any person to arrest the offender, and may thereupon, subject to the provisions herein contained as to bail, commit the offender to custody. (2) Any Magistrate, whether Executive or Judicial, may at any time arrest or direct the arrest, in his presence, within his local jurisdiction, of any person for whose arrest he is competent at the time and in the circumstances to issue a warrant. Sub section (1) gives the magistrate the power to arrest a person who has committed an offence in his presence and also to commit him to custody. Under sub section (2) the magistrate has the power to arrest a person who is suspected of having committed an offence but he has no power to commit him to custody in this case. Thus, any Magistrate (whether Executive or Judicial) may arrest a person without a warrant. Sec. 44(1) deals with the situation when any offence is committed in the presence of a Magistrate, within his local jurisdiction. In such case he may himself arrest or order any person to arrest the offender and also to commit him to custody (subject to the bail provisions). Under sec. 44 (2), the Magistrate has power to arrest a person who is suspected of having committed on offence but has not been given any power to commit him to custody. The omission of this power to commit such suspect to custody is not accidental but deliberate [Ram Chandra v. State, 1977 CrLJ 1783 (All)]. In the latter case, committing to custody will have to be done in accordance with Ss. 57 and 167 of the Code. 6.5.5 Protection of members of the Armed Forces from arrest (Sec. 45)

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 41 to 44 (both inclusive), no member of the Armed Forces of the Union shall be arrested for anything done or purported to be done by him in the discharge of his official duties except after obtaining the consent of the Central Government. (2) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Force charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub-section shall apply as if for the expression "Central Government" occurring therein, the expression "State Government" were substituted. It may be noted that the protection from arrest under this section is not absolute. A member of the Force may be arrested after obtaining the consent of the Central/State Government. Further, a member of the Force cannot make a pretended or fanciful claim under this provision, that he did the act in performance of his duties. Thus, acts like cheating 'or taking a bribe would fall outside the scope of the expression "discharge of official duties" [Satwant Singh v. State, AIR 1960 SC 266]. 6.5.6 Immunity of Members of Judicial Service Though there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure granting immunity or protection from arrest to the members of judicial service, the leading decision of the Supreme Court in Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat, (AIR 1991 SC 2176) lays down certain guidelines to be followed. In that case, a Chief Judicial Magistrate of Nadiad in Gujarat was humiliated, arrested, assaulted, handcuffed and tied with a thick rope around his arms and body on flimsy charges. In that condition, he was taken to the public exhibiting to the members of public that the police had the power and privilege to apprehend and deal with a Chief Judicial Magistrate to its sweet will. Treating the assault on an individual judicial officer as an onslaught on judicial institution, disapproving and strongly condemning it and punishing the erring police officers under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Supreme Court considered it necessary to lay down guidelines to be followed in the case of arrest and detention of a Judicial Officer. Holding the guidelines as "minimum safeguards" and not treating them exhaustive, SINGH, J. (as he then was) stated: (i) 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. (ii) If facts and circumstances necessitate the immediate arrest of a Judicial Officer of the subordinate judiciary, technical or formal arrest may be effected.

(iii) The fact 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. (iv) The Judicial Officer so arrested shall not be taken to a police station, without the prior order or directions of the District and Sessions Judge of the concerned District, if available. (v) Immediate facilities shall be provided to the Judicial Officer for communication with his family members, legal advisers and Judicial Officers, including the District and Sessions Judge. (vi) 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 Officer of equal or higher rank, if available. (vii) 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 and Sessions Judge concerned and also to the Chief Justice of the High Court. But the burden would be on the police to establish the 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 Apex Court added: "The above guidelines are not exhaustive but these are minimum safeguards which must be observed in case of arrest of judicial officer. 6.6.1 Arrest how made (Sec. 46) (1) In making an arrest the police officer or other person making the same shall actually touch or confine the body of the person to be arrested, unless there be a submission to the custody by word or action. Provided that where a women is to be arrested, unless the circumstances indicate to the contrary, her submission to the custody on an oral intimation of arrest shall be presumed and, unless the circumstances otherwise require or unless the police officer is a female, the police officer shall not touch the person of the women for making her arrest. (2) If such person forcibly resists the endeavor to arrest him, or attempts to evade the arrest, such police officer or other 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 offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for life. (4) Save in exceptional circumstances, no Women shall be arrested after sunset & before sunrise, and where such exceptional circumstances exist, the women 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 offence is committed or the arrest is to be made. The word Arrest and Custody are not synonymous. In every arrest there is custody but vice versa is not true. What amounts to arrest is laid down by the legislature in Section 46. Whether the arrest to be made is with a warrant or without the warrant, it is necessary that in making such an arrest the police officer or other person making the same actually touches or confines the body of the person to be arrested unless there be a submission to custody by word or action. (Roshan Beevi v. Jt. Secy. To Government of T.N., 1984 Cri LJ 134 Mad) Explaining the meaning of arrest, the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Deoman [AIR 1960 SC 1125], observed. "arrest consists in the seizure or touching of a person's body with a view to his restraint. Words may however, amount to an arrest if, in the circumstances of the case, they are calculated to bring, and do bring, to a person's notice that he is under compulsion and he thereafter submits to the compulsion." However, Section 46 Cr. P.C. does not contemplate any formality before a person can be said to be taken in custody, submission to custody by words of mouth or action by a person is sufficient. A person directly giving a police officer by words of mouth information that may be used as evidence against him may be deemed to have submitted himself to the custody of police officer. The person making an arrest may use 'all means' necessary to make the arrest if the person to be arrested resists or attempts to evade the arrest [Sec. 46(2)]. The words "all means" are very wide and include the taking of assistance from others in effecting the arrest [Nazir, AIR 1951 All 3 (F.B.)]. Sec. 46(3) lays down that the power to use necessary force for making an arrest shall not extend to causing the death of a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Thus, where fire was opened to disperse an unlawful assembly and death of an innocent person was caused, Sec. 46 could not be invoked for the protection of the police officer [Karan Singh v Haradayal Singh, 1979 Cr LJ 1211 (Punj)]. In State of Maharshtra v. C.C.W. Council of India (2004) Cri.L.J. 14 (S.C.), the High Court by an order prevented the police from arresting a lady without the presence of Lady Constable. And further prohibited the arrest of lady after sunset & before sunrise under any circumstances.

6.6.2 Search of place entered by person sought to be arrested (Sec. 47) (1) If any person acting under a warrant of arrest, or any police officer having authority to arrest, has reason to believe that the person to be arrested has entered into, or is within, any place, any person residing in, or being in charge of, such place shall, on demand of such person acting as aforesaid or such police officer, allow him free ingress thereto, and afford all reasonable facilities for a search therein. (2) If ingress to such place cannot be obtained under sub-section (1), it shall be lawful in any case for a person acting under a warrant and in any case in which a warrant may issue, but cannot be obtained without affording the person to be arrested an opportunity of escape, for a police officer to enter such place and search therein, and in order to effect an entrance into such place, to break open any outer or inner door or window of any house or place, whether that of the person to be arrested or of any other person, if after notification of his authority and purpose, and demand of admittance duly made, he cannot otherwise obtain admittance; Provided that, if any such place is an apartment in the actual occupancy of a female (not being the person to be arrested) who, according to custom, does not appear in public, such person or police officer shall, before entering such apartment, give notice to such female that she is at liberty to withdraw and shall afford her every reasonable facility for withdrawing, and may then break open the apartment and enter it. (3) Any police officer or other person authorized to make an arrest may break open any outer or inner door or window of any house or place in order to liberate himself or any other person who, having lawfully entered for the purpose of making an arrest, is detained therein. 6.6.3 Pursuit of offenders into other jurisdictions (Sec. 48) A police officer may, for the purpose of arresting without warrant any person whom he is authorised to arrest, pursue such person into any place in India. A police officer may, for the purpose of arresting without warrant any person whom he is authorized to arrest, pursue such a person into any place in India. Hence the arrest of a person by the police officer, investigating an offence, in pursuit of an offender is legal though it is made outside his circle [Manbodh AIR 1955 Nag 23]. 6.6.4 No unnecessary restraint (Sec. 49) The Person arrested shall not be subjected to more restraint than is necessary to prevent his escape. Sec. 49 lays down that the person arrested shall not be subjected to more restraint than is necessary to prevent his escape. In other words, unnecessary restraint and physical

inconvenience, like tying of hands and feet, is not to be resorted to, unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. In Citizens for Democracy v State of Assam (1995) 3 SCC 743, it has been held that where a person is arrested by the police without warrant, the police officer if he is satisfied 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. When the police arrests a person in execution of a warrant of arrest obtained from a Magistrate the person so arrested shall not be handcuffed unless the police have obtained orders from the Magistrate in this regard. Similar orders are required in respect of persons arrested by police for production before the Magistrate for a remand. 6.6.5 Procedure when police officer deputes subordinate to arrest without warrant (Sec. 55) (1) When any officer in charge of a police station or any police officer making an investigation under Chapter XII requires any officer subordinate to him to arrest without a warrant (otherwise than in his presence) any person who may lawfully be arrested without a warrant, he shall deliver to the officer required to make the arrest an order in writing, specifying the person to be arrested and the offence or other cause for which the arrest is to be made and the officer so required shall, before making the arrest, notify to the person to be arrested the substance of the order and, if so required by such person, shall show him the order. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall affect the power of a police officer to arrest a person under section 41. 6.6.6 Power, on escape, to pursue and retake (Sec. 60) (1) If a person in lawful custody escapes or is rescued, the person from whose custody he escaped or was rescued may immediately pursue and arrest him in any place in India. (2) The provisions of section 47 shall apply to arrests under sub-section (1) although the person making any such arrest is not acting under a warrant and is not a police officer having authority to arrest. This section applies not only to police officers but also to other persons or officials making arrest under the Code. 6.6.7 Arrest to be made strictly according to the code (Sec. 60 A) No arrest shall be made except in accordance with the provisions of this code or any other law for the time being in force providing for arrest.

6.7 After Arrest Procedures: 6.7.1 Search of arrested person (Sec. 51) (1) (1) Whenever a person is arrested by a police officer under a warrant which does not provide for the taking of bail, or under a warrant which provides for the taking of bail but the person arrested cannot furnish bail, and whenever a person is arrested without warrant, or by a private person under a warrant, and cannot legally be admitted to bail, or is unable to furnish bail, the officer making the arrest or, when the arrest is made by a private person, the police officer to whom he makes over the person arrested, may search such person, and place in safe custody all articles, other, than necessary wearing-apparel, found upon him and where any article is seized from the arrested person, a receipt showing the articles taken in possession by the police officer shall be given to such person. (2) Whenever it is necessary to cause a female to be searched, the search shall be made by another female with strict regard to decency. This section deals with the search of an arrested person & not the search of the place, which is dealt with in section 100 of the Code. The search of an arrested person without communicating him the grounds of his arrest will be illegal. Before making a personal search of the accused, the searching officer and others assisting him should give their personal search to the accused before searching the person of the accused. This rule is meant to avoid the possibility of implanting an object to be shown in the search [Rabindranath Prusty v State of Orissa, 1984 Cr LJ 1392 (Ori)]. Though the section does not require the search to be conducted in the presence of witnesses, the rules made under the Police Act, 1861 direct that the search should be made in the presence of (independent and respectable) witnesses. This section does not require that the signature of the person searched shall be taken on the memo of the recovery list. If recovery memo is not signed by the accused, the search is not illegal [Mahadeo v State, 1990 Cr LJ 858 (All)]. Where the arrested person is a woman, the search shall be made by another woman with strict regard to decency. It is not necessary that the witnesses also be female [Kamla Bai v State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 1189]. This case shows that some irregularity in making a search will not make the search-evidence inadmissible. 6.7.2 Power to seize offensive weapons (Sec. 52) The officer or other person making any arrest under this Code may take from the person arrested any offensive weapons which he has about his person, and shall deliver all weapons so taken to the Court or officer before which or whom the officer or person making the arrest is required by this Code to produce the person arrested.

This section authorizes the seizure of the offensive weapon from the person arrested. Where the evidence of the investigating officer is convincing, the evidence as to the recovery of the offensive weapon need not be rejected on the mere ground that the seizure witnesses do not support the prosecution story [Mohan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1978 SC 1511]. 6.7.3 Examination of accused by medical practitioner at the request of police officer (Sec. 53) (1) When a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence of such a nature and alleged to have been committed under such circumstances that there are reasonable grounds for believing that an examination of his person will afford evidence as to the commission of an offence, it shall be lawful for a registered medical practitioner, acting at the request of a police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector, and for any person acting in good faith in his aid and under his direction, to make such an examination of the person arrested as is reasonably necessary in order to ascertain the facts which may afford such evidence, and to use such force as is reasonably necessary for that purpose. (2) Whenever the person of a female is to be examined under this section, the examination shall be made only by, or under the supervision of, a female registered medical practitioner. Explanation: - in this section and in sections 53A and 54, (a) "Examination" shall include the examination of blood, blood stains, semen, swabs in case of sexual offences, sputum and sweat, hair samples and finger nail clippings by the use of modern and scientific techniques including DNA profiling and such other tests which the registered medical practitioner thinks necessary in a particular case; (b) (b) "Registered medical practitioner" means a medical practitioner who possess any medical qualification as defined in clause (h) of section 2 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) and whose name has been entered in a State Medical Register. This provision has been made to facilitate effective investigation. It comes into effect only when there are reasonable grounds that a police officer bona fide entertains. It may be noted that the section does not bar other superior officers or the court concerned from exercising the said power if it is necessary for doing justice in a criminal case [Anil A. Lokhande v State of Maharashtra, 1981 CrLJ 125 (SC)]. It was held in Anil A. Lokhande Case that examination of person of the accused cannot be confined only to external examination of his body but many a times it may become necessary to make examination of

some organs inside the body for the purpose of collecting evidence. In that case examination may include taking of blood from the accused. This section provides that a medical examination will be done at the request of a police officer not below the rank of a Sub-inspector. However superior officers of the police or the court are not barred from exercising the said power if it is necessary for doing justice. If the conditions presented under sub-section (1) are fulfilled it shall be lawful for a registered medical practitioner and for any person acting in good faith in his aid and under his directions to make such examination. According to Andhra Pradesh High Court it is lawful to subject an arrested person to medical examination. Thus we see that sub-section (1) protects a medical practitioner for lawful medical examination, of the person accused of committing an offence, made by him at the request of a police officer. As the medical examination, of the accused under Section 53 is part and parcel of the process of investigation, the police could get the accused medically examined even after the framing of the charge by the court by exercising their powers of further investigation under Section 173 (8). It was held in State of Maharashtra v. Dyanaba Bhikoba Dagade 1979 Cr L J 277(Bom), that a Magistrate has no authority under Section 53 to pass an order allowing a medical practitioner to extract blood of the accused. Investigation is a task of the police and such functions must be performed by them alone. 6.7.4 Examination of person accused of rape by medical practitioner (Sec. 53A) (l) When a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence of rape or an attempt to commit rape and there are reasonable grounds for believing that an examination of this person will afford evidence as to the commission of such offence. It shall be lawful for a registered medical practitioner employed in a hospital run by the Government or by a local authority and in the absence of such a practitioner within the radius of sixteen kilometers from the place where the offence has been committed by any other registered medical practitioner, acting at the request of a police officer not below the rank of a sub-inspector and for any person acting in good faith in his aid and under his direction to make such an examination of the arrested person and to use such force as is reasonably necessary for that purpose. (2) The registered medical practitioner conducting such examination shall without delay examine such person and prepare a report of his examination giving the following particulars namely: (i) the name and address of the accused and of the person by whom he was brought. (ii) the age of the accused. (iii) marks of injury if any on the person of the accused. (iv) the description of material taken from the person of the accused for DNA profiling and (v) other material particulars in reasonable detail.

(3) The report shall state precisely the reasons for each conclusion arrived at. (4) The exact time of commencement and completion of the examination shall also be noted in the report. (5) The registered medical practitioner shall without delay, forward the report of the investigating officer who shall forward it to the Magistrate referred to in section 173 as part of the documents referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (5) of that section. 6.7.5 Identification of person arrested (Sec. 54A) Where a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence and his identification by any other person or persons is considered necessary for the purpose of investigation of such offence the Court, having jurisdiction, may on the request of the officer in charge of a police station, direct the person so arrested to subject himself to identification by any person or persons in such manner as the Court may deem fit. 6.7.6 Police to report apprehensions (Sec. 58) Officers in charge of police stations shall report to the District Magistrate, or, if he so directs, to the Sub-divisional Magistrate, the cases of all persons arrested without warrant, within the limits of their respective stations, whether such persons have been admitted to bail or otherwise. The object of the report is to keep the D.M. informed of the situation regarding grave offences. And the report would enable the D.M. to see whether the police are exercising their powers properly or not. 6.7.7 Discharge of person apprehended (Sec. 59) No person who has been arrested by a police officer shall be discharged except on his own bond, or on bail, or under the special order of a Magistrate. This section provides that a person who has been arrested by a police officer shall not be discharged except- (a) on his own bond, or (b) on bail, or (c) under the special order of a Magistrate under section 167 of the Code. Once police arrests a person, he can be enlarged only after taking a bond or bail for his appearance before a Magistrate; the police cannot discharge him on their own responsibility without the order of a Magistrate. If the arrest is found to be illegal, there would arise no question of releasing the accused on his own bond or bail and the only proper order would be an order of discharge by the Magistrate. 6.8 Rights of arrested Person:

The right of personal liberty is a basic human right recognized by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Universal Declaration of human rights. Our Constitution recognizes it as a fundamental right. Although the police have been given various powers for facilitating the making of arrests, the powers are subject to certain restraints. These restraints are primarily provided for the Protection of the interests of the person to be arrested and also of the society at large. The arrest should not only be legal and justified but it should be effected strictly according to the procedure established by law. The imposition of the restraints can be considered, to an extent, as the recognition of the rights of the arrested person. There are, however, some other provisions which have rather more expressly and directly created important rights in favour of the arrested person. The Constitution of India also recognizes the rights of arrested person under the 'Fundamental Rights'. Article 21 of the Constitution provides: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to Procedure established by law". The procedure contemplated by this Article must be right, just and fair and not arbitrary fanciful or oppressive.

Rights of arrested Person: 1. Right to be informed of the grounds for arrest (Sec. 50(1)) 2. Right to be informed of right to bail (Sec. 50(2)) 3. Obligation of person making arrest to inform about the arrest, etc., to a nominated person (Sec. 50A) 4. Right to be examined by a Medical Practitioner (Sec. 54) 5. Right to be produced before Magistrate without Delay (Sec. 56) 6. Person arrested not to be detained more than twenty-four hours (Sec. 57) 7. Right to consult a legal practitioner (Sec. 41D) 8. Right of an arrested indigent person to free legal aid and to be informed about it (Sec. 304) 9. Right to obtain compensation for illegal arrest (Sec. 358) 10. Right to Health and Safety (Sec. 55A)

6.8.1 Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail (Sec. 50)

(1) Every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. (2) Where a police officer arrests without warrant any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence, he shall inform the person arrested that he is entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange for sureties on his behalf. Making known to the accused grounds of his arrest is a constitutional requirement and failure to comply with this requirement renders the arrest illegal. In Ajit Kumar v. State of Assam (1976 Cr LJ 1303 Gau), the Gauhati High Court held that when a person arrested without warrant alleges by affidavit that he was not communicated with full particulars of the offence leading to his arrest, in the face of this affidavit the police diary cannot be perused to verify the police officer's claim of oral communication of such particulars. No counter affidavit denying the petitioner's allegation was filed. Therefore even if such oral communication was made it is not clear whether full particulars were communicated or mere section was communicated. Hence the arrest and detention of that person was illegal. Secondly when a subordinate officer is deputed to arrest a person under section 55 such subordinate officer must notify to the person to be arrested the written order or the other cause for which the arrest is to be made. Thirdly, in case of arrest to be made under a warrant Section 75 provides that the police officer or other person executing the warrant must notify the substance thereof to the person to be arrested and if required they must show him the warrant. Apart from these provisions, our Constitution has also conferred on this right. Article 22(1) of the Constitution provides: No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. The right to be informed of the grounds of arrest is an important right of the arrested person. Timely information of the grounds of arrest helps him in many ways like (i) moving proper Court for bail, and (ii) to make expeditious arrangement for his defence. 6.8.2 Obligation of person making arrest to inform about the arrest, etc., to a nominated person (Sec. 50A) (l) Every police officer or other person making any arrest under this Code shall forthwith give the information regarding such arrest and place where the arrested person is being held to any, of his friends, relatives or such other persons as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person for the purpose of giving such information. . (2) The police officer shall inform the arrested person of his rights under sub section (1) as soon as he is brought to the police station.

(3) An entry of the fact as to who has been informed of the arrest of such person shall be made in a book to be kept in the police station in such form as may be prescribed in this behalf by the State Government. (4) It shall be the duty of the Magistrate before whom such arrested person is produced, to satisfy himself that the requirements of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) have been complied with in respect of such arrested person. The provisions of sections 50 and 50A are mandatory. Where a person is arrested without any warrant, he should be immediately informed of the particulars of the offence and grounds of his arrest and where the offence is a bailable one, of his right to be released on bail. That is an arrest without warrant can be justified only if it is an arrest on a charge made known to the person arrested. This section confers a valuable right and non-compliance with it amounts to disregard of the procedure established by law. The allegation that the grounds of arrest or its particulars as would be, enough to enable him to file a writ petition of habeas corpus were not given, has to be proved by the person making such allegations. Making known to the accused grounds of his arrest is a constitutional requirement and failure to comply with this requirement renders the arrest illegal. In Raj Kumari v. S.H.O. Noida, (2004) Cri.L.J. 9 (S.C). the petitioner a leader of workers who had resorted to strike and violence was arrested in night after F.LR. of incident was lodged. The arrest was made by the police after investigation which showed that she had led the mob. The petitioner complained that she was arrested in the night in violation of the Supreme Court's decision in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, the petitioner supported her allegation on affidavit but affidavit of her relatives were not filed. She also complained that police officers who arrested her did not bear name plates and no memo of arrest was prepared. The allegation that she was arrested in night was denied by police by filing affidavit. It was held that the affidavit of the petitioner was the only supportive evidence on record. There was no other corroborative material or affidavit of her relatives. Therefore, the plea of petitioner that she was arrested at night was not tenable, more so because the plea of violation of Supreme Court decision was not raised in her bail application moved on same day and with legal assistance. Therefore, the allegation of petitioner was not accepted and the petition to initiate action against police was held liable to be set aside. 6.8.3 Examination of arrested person by medical officer (Sec. 54) l) When any person is arrested, he shall be examined by a medical officer in the service of Central or State Governments and in case the medical officer is not available, by a registered medical practitioner soon after the arrest is made:

Provided that where the arrested person is a female, the examination of the body shall be made only by or under the supervision of a female medical officer, and in case the female medical officer is not available, by a female registered medical practitioner. (2) The medical officer or a registered medical practitioner so examining the arrested person shall prepare the record of such examination, mentioning therein any injuries or marks of violence upon the person arrested, and the approximate time when such injuries or marks may have been inflicted. (3) Where an examination is made under sub-section (1), a copy of the report of such examination shall be furnished by the medical officer or registered medical practitioner, as the case may be, to the arrested person or the person nominated by such arrested person. This section confers on the arrested person the right to have his medical examination done. It was held in V.J. Vaghela v. Kantibhai Jethabhai, (1985 Cr.L.J. 974 (Guj) that the Magistrate owes a duty to inform the arrested person about his right to get himself examined in case he has complaints of physical torture or maltreatment in police custody. The Supreme Court has cautioned the lower Courts not to adapt a casual approach to custodial torture [Sheela Barse v. state of Maharashtra, 1983 Cr.LJ 642 SC]. In case the Magistrate considers the test of the accused to-be vexatious or for defeating the ends of justice, he may refuse it. It has been held in Mukesh Kumar v. State (1990 Cr LJ 1923 (Delhi), that the procedure adopted by the Magistrate to examine the body of the accused himself and then dismissing the application with his observation that they were seen in normal posture was wholly unwarranted and erroneous. 6.8.4 Health & Safety of arrested person (Sec 55A) It shall be the duty of the person having the custody of an accused to take reasonable care of the health & safety of the accused. 6.8.5 Person arrested to be taken before Magistrate or officer in charge of police station (Sec. 56) A police officer making an arrest without warrant shall, without unnecessary delay and subject to the provisions herein contained as to bail, take or send the person arrested before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case, or before the officer in charge of a police station.

6.8.6 Person arrested not to be detained more than twenty-four hours (Sec. 57) No police officer shall detail 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.

A person arrested cannot to be detained more than twenty-four hours. It may also be noted that the right has further been strengthened by its incorporation in the Constitution as a fundamental right. Article 22(2) of the Constitution provides: Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest Magistrate within a period of 24 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." The right of the arrested person to be brought before a magistrate within a period of not more than 24 hours of arrest has been created with a view to prevent arrest and detention for the purpose of extracting confession or as a means of compelling people to give information, to prevent police stations being used as prisons or to afford an early recourse to a judicial officer independent of the police on all questions of bail or discharge. It was held in Saptawna v. State of Assam, AIR 1971 SC 813, that where an accused is illegally detained, the detention becomes lawful when subsequently he is arrested and produced before a Magistrate within twenty-four hours. In Kultej Singh v. Circle Inspector of Police, 1992 CrLJ 1173 (Karn), the accused was arrested in the morning of 27-9-1990 and produced before the Magistrate on 29-9-1990. First information report revealed that the delay in producing the accused before the Magistrate was caused since the respondent officials were immediately required to go to other place in connection with communal rioting. They also tendered unconditional apology for the delay. It was held that the detention or custody beyond twenty-four hours was not illegal because there was reasonable explanation for the delay and the conduct of the respondents was not lacking in bona fides. 6.8.7 Right to consult a legal practitioner Both the Constitution & the Provisions of the Code recognize the right of every arrested person to consult a legal Practitioner of his choice. The right begins from the moment of arrest (S 303 of the Code and Article 22(1) of the constitution of India). Section 303 provides that any person accused of an offence before a Criminal Court, or against whom proceedings are instituted under this Code, may of right be defended by a pleader of his choice. This section contemplates that the accused should not only be at liberty to be defended by a lawyer but also implies that he should have a reasonable opportunity, if in custody, of getting into communication with his legal adviser for the purpose of his defence. This section does not confer a right on the accused person to be provided with a lawyer but it is a privilege given to him to ask for a lawyer if he wants to engage one. Article 22(1) of the Constitution provides that no person who is arrested shall be denied the right to consult and to be defended by a lawyer of his choice. The objective behind conferring this right is that an accused person generally does not have the knowledge of law and the professional skill to defend himself before a Court of law.

In R.M. Wasawa v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC 1143, the Supreme Court has held that "the Sessions Judge should view with sufficient seriousness the need to appoint State counsel for undefended accused in grave cases. Indigence should never be a ground for denying fair trial or equal justice. Therefore, advocates competent to handle cases should be appointed. Sufficient time and complete papers should also be made available to them so that they may prepare the case and the accused also may feel confident that the counsel chosen by the court has had adequate time and material to defend him properly." In case of trial of a criminal case, which carry a sentence of imprisonment as and when the accused is produced or brought before a magistrate, the Magistrate should make it known to the accused that he has a 'right, a constitutional right of being represented by a counsel of his choice and if he has no means to engage a lawyer, then arrangement may be made for his defence. 6.8.8 Right of an arrested indigent person to free legal aid and to be informed about it. In Khatri (II) v. State of Bihar (1981) 1 SCC 627, the Supreme Court has held that the State is under a constitutional Mandate (implicit in Article 21) to provide free legal aid to an indigent accused person. Section 304 of the Code provides for legal aid to accused at State expense in certain cases. 6.8.9 Apart from the above-mentioned rules the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu V. State Of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416; 1997 SCC (Cri) 92, issued the following instructions: (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 and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may either be 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 countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest. (3) 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. (4) 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 affecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee.

(5) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by the Director, Health Services of the State or Union Territory concerned. The Director, Health Services should prepare such a panel for all Tehsils and districts as well. (6) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest referred to above should be sent to the Illaqa Magistrate for his record. (7) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout interrogation. (8) A Police Control Room should be provided at all districts 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 herein above-mentioned shall apart from rendering the official concerned liable for departmental action, also render him 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 right to compensation for the victims of unlawful arrest and detention has been recognised by the Supreme Court in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa. (1997 SCC (Cri) 434) It is to be noted that these instructions are applicable to authorities like Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Directorate of Enforcement, C.B.I., C.LB., C.I.S.F., etc. which have the power to effect arrest and detain persons for interrogation. 6.9 Consequences of non-compliance with the provisions

relating to arrest: (1) A trial will not be void simply because the provisions relating to arrest have not been fully complied with. (2) Though the illegality or irregularity in making an arrest would not vitiate the trial of the arrested person, it would be quite material if such a person is prosecuted on a charge of resistance to or escape from lawful custody. (3) If the arrest is illegal, the person who is being so arrested can exercise the right of private defence in accordance with, and subject to, the provisions contained in Sections 96 to 106 of the IPC. (4) If the public servant having authority to make arrests, knowingly exercises that authority in contravention of law and effects an illegal arrest, he can be prosecuted for an offence under Section 220 of the IPC. Apart from this special provision, any person who illegally arrests another is punishable under Section 342 of the IPC for wrongful confinement. (5) If the arrest is illegal, it is a tort of false imprisonment, and the arrested person is entitled to claim damages from the person who made such an arrest.

In Muhammad Yusuf v. Queen Empress, (1897) 24 IA 137 (PC) Halsbury L.C. observed, it may well be that the procedure taken was irregular and improper and brought a person wrongfully within the jurisdiction. But if he is there and if he has committed an offence, whatever else may be said about it, it is no answer to the offence committed within the jurisdiction that he has been brought irregularly within the jurisdiction. It has been categorically ruled by the Supreme Court in Nilabati Behera (1993) 2 SCC 746 that victims of unlawful arrest and detention have right to compensation.It may be mentioned here that the provisions relating to arrest cannot be bypassed by alleging that there was no arrest but only informal detention. Informal detention or restraint of any kind by the police is not authorized by law. 6.10 Safeguards Recently, in Siddharam v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694 the Supreme Court, by way of illustrative cases made the following suggestions, which may be helpful before an accused is arrested. 1) Direct the accused to joint the investigation and only when the accused does not cooperate with the investigating agency, then only the accused be arrested. 2) Seize either the passport or such other related documents, such as, the title deeds of properties or the fixed deposit receipts/share certificates of the accused. 3) Direct the accused to execute bonds. 4) The accused may be directed to furnish sureties of a number of persons which according to the prosecution are necessary in view of the facts of the particular case. 5) The accused be directed to furnish undertaking that he would not visit the place where the witnesses reside so that the possibility of tampering of evidence or otherwise influencing the course of justice can be avoided. 6) Bank accounts be frozen for small duration during the investigation.

*******************