Index:

1. Facts of case

2. Relevant law discussed in case

3. Judgment

4. Observation

5. Supreme court directives

6. Other landmark cases on arrest and detention

7. Conclusion

8. Bibliography

9. Webliography

List of cases

 People v. Defore

 People v. Adams

 Smt. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani

 Couch v. United States

 Sheela Barse v State of Maharashtra

Icchu Devi Choraria v Union of India

Facts of Case

 This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is a young man of
28 years of age who has completed his LL.B. and has enrolled himself as an advocate. The Senior
Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, Respondent 4 called the petitioner in his office for making
enquiries in some case. The petitioner on 7-1-1994 at about 10 o'clock appeared personally along
with his brothers Shri Mangeram Choudhary, Nahar Singh Yadav, Harinder Singh Tewatia, Amar
Singh and others before Respondent 4. Respondent 4 kept the petitioner in his custody. When the
brother of the petitioner made enquiries about the petitioner, lie was told that the petitioner will
be set free in the evening after making some enquiries in connection with a case.

 On 7-1-1994 at about 12.55 p.m., the brother of the petitioner being apprehensive of the
intentions of Respondent 4, sent a telegram to the Chief Minister of U.P. apprehending his
brother's implication in some criminal case and also further apprehending the petitioner being
shot dead in fake encounter. In spite of the frequent enquiries, the whereabouts of the petitioner
could not be located. On the evening of 7-1- 1994, it came to be known that petitioner is detained
in illegal custody of 5th respondent, SHO, P.S. Mussoorie.

 On 8-1-1994, it was informed that the 5th respondent was keeping the petitioner in detention to
make further enquiries in some case. So far the petitioner has not been produced before the
Magistrate concerned. Instead the 5th respondent directed the relatives of the petitioner to
approach the 4th respondent SSP, Ghaziabad, for release of the petitioner.

 On 9-1-1994, in the evening when the brother of petitioner along with relatives went to P.S.
Mussoorie to enquire about the well-being of his brother, it was found that the petitioner had been
taken to some undisclosed destination. Under these circumstances, the present petition has been
preferred for the release of Joginder Kumar, the petitioner herein.
Relevant Laws Discussed in case:

Constitution of India:

Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to procedure established by law.

Article 22(1): No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as
may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a
legal practitioner of his choice.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act,1984(English Law) :

Section 56(1): Where a person has been arrested and is being held in custody in a police station or other
premises, he shall be entitled, if he so requests, to have one friend or relative or other person who is
known to him or who is likely to take an interest in his welfare told, as soon as is practicable except to the
extent that delay is permitted by this section, that he has been arrested and is being detained there.

Section 58: Access to legal advice

(1) A person arrested and held in custody in a police station or other premises shall be entitled, if he so
requests, to consult a solicitor privately at any time.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, a request under subsection (1) above and the time at which it was
made shall be recorded in the custody record.
(3) Such a request need not be recorded in the custody record of a person who makes it at a time while he
is at a court after being charged with an offence.
(4) If a person makes such a request, he must be permitted to consult a solicitor as soon as is practicable
except to the extent that delay is permitted by this section.
(5) In any case he must be permitted to consult a solicitor within 36 hours from the relevant time, as
defined in section 41(2) of the act.

Children Act 1960:

Section 19: Information to parent or guardian or probation officer
Where a child is arrested, the officer-in-charge of the police station to which the child is brought shall, as
soon as may be after the arrest, inform-

(a) the parent or guardian of the child, if he can be found, of such arrest and direct him to be present at the
children’s court before which the child will appear; and

(b) the probation officer of such arrest in order to enable him to obtain information regarding the
antecedents and family history of the child and other material circumstances likely to be of assistance to
the children's court for making the inquiry
Judgement:

Supreme Court on 11-1-1994 ordered notice to State of U.P. as well as SSP, Ghaziabad. The said Senior
Superintendent of Police along with petitioner appeared before Supreme Court on 14-1-1994. According
to him, the petitioner has been released. To question as to why the petitioner was detained for a period of
five days, he would submit that the petitioner was not in detention at all. His help was taken for detecting
some cases relating to abduction and the petitioner was helpful in cooperating with the police. Therefore,
there is no question of detaining him. Though, as on that day the relief in habeas corpus petition could not
be granted. However, Supreme Court raises some questions as of, Where was the need to detain the
petitioner for five; if really the petitioner was not in detention, days why was not this Court informed are
some questions which remain unanswered. If really, there was a detention for five days, for what reason
was he detained? These matters require to be enquired into. Therefore, we direct the learned District
Judge, Ghaziabad to make a detailed enquiry and submit his report within four weeks from the date of
receipt of this order. After that Supreme Court after analysing the facts of case took upon himself to take
into account the rising human rights violations by police officers on grounds of arbitrarial powers of arrest
vested in CrPC and observes some guidelines and issues for police for using their power to arrest.

It was held that no arrest can be made because it is lawful for the Police Officer to do so. The existence of
the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police Officer
must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a
person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in
a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be
prudent for a Police Officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and
perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after
some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to
the person's complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a
serious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the constitutional
concomitants of the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. A person is not liable to arrest
merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the
opinion of the Officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified. Except in heinous
offences, an arrest must be avoided if a police officer issues notice to a person to attend the Station House
and not to leave Station without permission would do.

Constitution of India - Articles 21 and 22 - An arrested person has a right, upon request, to have someone
informed and to consult privately with a lawyer - These rights are inherent in Articles- 21 and 22(1) -
Directions issued to effectively enforce these fundamental rights - When the arrested person is produced,
Magistrate has to satisfy himself that the requirements have been complied with.
There is a right to have someone informed. That rights of the arrested person, upon request, to have
someone informed and to consult privately with a lawyer was recognised by Section 56(1) of the Police
and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in England. These rights are inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the
Constitution and require to be recognised and scrupulously protected. For effective enforcement of these
fundamental rights, we issue the following requirements: 1) an arrested person being held in custody is
entitled, if he so requests to have one friend, relative or other person who is known to him or likely to take
an interest in his welfare told as far as is practicable that he has been arrested and where is being detained.
2) The Police Officer shall inform the arrested person when he is brought to the police station of this
right. 3) An entry shall be required to be made in the Diary as to who was informed of the arrest. These
protections from power must be held to flow from Articles 21 and 22(1) and enforced strictly. It shall be
the duty of the Magistrate, before whom the arrested person is produced, to satisfy himself that these
requirements have been complied with the above requirements shall be followed in all cases of arrest till
legal provisions are made in this behalf. These requirements shall be in addition to the right of the
arrested persons found in the various police manuals.
Observation:

Supreme court while making observation taken into account the rising cases of violation of human rights
by police officers and increasing crime rate and big question before supreme court was that how could
they strike balance between the two? Supreme court took realistic view in this direction and made
following observations:

 The law of arrest is one of balancing individual rights, liberties and privileges, on the one hand,
and individual duties, obligations and responsibilities on the other; of weighing and balancing the
rights, liberties and privileges of the single individual and those of individuals collectively; of
simply deciding what is wanted and where to put the weight and the emphasis; of deciding which
comes first the criminal or society, the law violator or the law abider; of meeting the challenge
which Mr Justice Cardozo so forthrightly met when he wrestled with a similar task of balancing
individual rights against society's rights and wisely held that the exclusion rule was bad law, that
society came first, and that the criminal should not go free because the constable blundered. In
People v. Defore1 Justice Cardozo observed:

"The question is whether protection for the individual would not be gained at a
disproportionate loss of protection for society. On the one side is the social need that crime shall
be repressed. On the other, the social need that law shall not be flouted by the insolence of office.
There are dangers in any choice. The rule of the Aclams case (People v. Adams2) strikes a
balance between opposing interests. We must hold it to be the law until those organs of
government by which a change of public policy is normally effected shall give notice to the
courts that change has come to pass."

 To the same effect is the statement by Judge Learned Hand, in Fried Re3:
"The protection of the individual from oppression and abuse by the police and other
enforcing officers is indeed a major interest in a free society; but so is the effective prosecution of
crime, an interest which at times seems to be forgotten. Perfection is impossible; like other human
institutions criminal proceedings must be a compromise."
The quality of a nation's civilisation can be largely measured by the methods it uses in the
enforcement of criminal law.
 This Court in Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani4 (AIR at p. 1032) quoting Lewis Mayers stated:
(SCC p. 433, para 15) "The paradox has been put sharply by Lewis Mayers:
“To strike the balance between the needs of law enforcement on the one hand and the protection
of the citizen from oppression and injustice at the hands of the law-enforcement machinery on the
other is a perennial problem of statecraft. The pendulum over the years has swung to the right."
 Again (in AIR para 2 1, at p. 1033) it was observed: (SCC p. 436, para 23) "We have earlier
spoken of the conflicting claims requiring reconciliation. Speaking pragmatically, there exists a
rivalry between societal interest in effecting crime detection and constitutional rights which
accused individuals possess. Since Miranda5 there has been retreat from stress on protection of
the accused and gravitation towards society's interest in convicting law-breakers. Currently, the
trend in the American jurisdiction according to legal journals, is that 'respect for (constitutional)
principles is eroded when they leap their proper bounds to interfere with the legitimate interests
of society in enforcement of its laws...'. (Couch v. United StateS6). Our constitutional
perspective has, therefore, to be relative and cannot afford to be absolutist, especially when
torture technology, crime escalation and other social variables affect the application of principles
in producing humane justice.

 The National Police Commission in its Third Report referring to the quality of arrests by the
police in India mentioned power of arrest as one of the chief sources of corruption in the police.
The report suggested that, by and large, nearly 60% of the arrests were either unnecessary
or unjustified and that such unjustified police action accounted for 43.2% of the
expenditure of the jails. The said Commission in its Third Report at p. 31 observed thus:
"It is obvious that a major portion of the arrests were connected with very minor prosecutions
and cannot, therefore, be regarded as quite necessary from the point of view of crime prevention.
Continued detention in 'ail of the persons so arrested has also meant avoidable expenditure on
their maintenance. In the above period it was estimated that 43.2 per cent of the expenditure in
the connected jails was over such prisoners only who in the ultimate analysis need not have been
arrested at all."

As on today, arrest with or without warrant depending upon the circumstances of a particular case is
governed by the Code of Criminal.

 Whenever a public servant is arrested that matter should be intimated to the superior officers, if
possible, before the arrest and in any case, immediately after the arrest. In cases of members of
Armed Forces, Army, Navy or Air Force, intimation should be sent to the Officer commanding
the unit to which the member belongs. It should be done immediately after the arrest is effected.
Under Rule 229 of the Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, when a member is
arrested on a criminal charge or is detained under an executive order of the Magistrate, the
executive authority must inform without delay such fact to the Speaker. As soon as any arrest,
detention, conviction or release is effected intimation should invariably be sent to the
Government concerned concurrently with the intimation sent to the Speaker/Chairman of the
Legislative Assembly/Counc il/Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha. This should be sent through telegrams
and also by post and the intimation should not be on the ground of holiday. 5 Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 US 436: 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966) 6 409 US 322,336: 34 LEd 2d 548(1973)
  With regard to the apprehension of juvenile offenders Section 58 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure lays down as under:
"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."
Section 19(a) of the Children Act makes the following provision:
"The parent or guardian of the child, if he can be found, of such arrest and direct him to be present at the
Children's Court before which the child will appear;"

1. It is worth quoting the following passage from Police Powers and Accountability by John L.
Lambert, p. 93:
"More recently, the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure recognised that 'there is a critically
important relationship between the police and the public in the detection and investigation of
crime' and suggested that public confidence in police powers required that these conform to three
principal standards: fairness, openness and workability." (emphasis supplied)
The Royal Commission suggested restrictions on the power of arrest on the basis of the "necessity of
(sic) principle". The two main objectives of this principle are that police can exercise powers only in
those cases in which it was genuinely necessary to enable them to execute their duty to prevent the
commission of offences, to investigate crime. The Royal Commission was of the view that such
restrictions would diminish the use of arrest and produce more uniform use of powers. The Royal
Commission Report on Criminal Procedure Sir Cyril Philips at p. 45 said:
"... we recommend that detention upon arrest for an offence should continue only on one or more
of the following criteria:
(a) the person's unwillingness to identify himself so that a summons may be served upon him;
(b) the need to prevent the continuation or repetition of that offence;
(c) the need to protect the arrested person himself or other persons or property;
(d) the need to secure or preserve evidence of or relating to that offence or to obtain such evidence from
the suspect by questioning him; and
(e) the likelihood of the person failing to appear at court to answer any charge made against him."
The Royal Commission in the above said report at p. 46 also suggested:
"To help to reduce the use of arrest we would also propose the introduction here of a scheme that is used
in Ontario enabling a police officer to issue what is called an appearance notice. That procedure can be
used to obtain attendance at the police station without resorting to arrest provided a power to arrest exists,
for example
to be fingerprinted or to participate in an identification parade. It could also be extended to attendance for
interview at a time convenient both to the suspect and to the police officer investigating the case.
2. In India, Third Report of the National Police Commission at p. 32 also suggested: "An arrest
during the investigation of a cognizable case may be considered justified in one or other of
the following circumstances:
(i) The case involves a grave offence like murder, dacoity, robbery, rape etc., and it is necessary
to arrest the accused and bring his movements under restraint to infuse confidence among the
terrorstricken victims.
(ii) The accused is likely to abscond and evade the processes of law.
(iii) The accused is given to violent behaviour and is likely to commit further offences unless his
movements are brought under restraint.
(iv) The accused is a habitual offender and unless kept in custody he is likely to commit similar
offences again.
It would be desirable to insist through departmental instructions that a police officer making an
arrest should also record in the case diary the reasons for making the arrest, thereby clarifying his
conformity to the specified guidelines......"
The above guidelines are merely the incidents of personal liberty guaranteed under the
Constitution of India. No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so.
The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite
another. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so.
Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the
reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere
allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a police
officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own
interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some
investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as
to the person's complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his
liberty is a serious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the
constitutional concomitants of the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. A person is
not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some
reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is
necessary and justified. Except in heinous offences, an arrest must be avoided if a police officer
issues notice to person to attend the Station House and not to leave the Station without permission
would do.

3. Then, there is the right to have someone informed. That right of the arrested person, upon
request, to have someone informed and to consult privately with a lawyer was recognised by
Section 56(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 in England (Civil Actions
Against the Police Richard Clayton and Hugh Tomlinson; p. 313). That section provides:
"Where a person has been arrested and is being held in custody in a police station or other
premises, he shall be entitled, if he so requests, to have one friend or relative or other person who
is known to him or who is likely to take an interest in his welfare told, as soon as is practicable
except to the extent that delay is permitted by this section, that he has been arrested and is being
detained there."
These rights are inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and require to be recognised and
scrupulously protected. For effective enforcement of these fundamental rights, we issue the following
requirements:

1. An arrested person being held in custody is entitled, if he so requests to have one friend, relative or
other person who is known to him or likely to take an interest in his welfare told as far as is practicable
that he has been arrested and where he is being detained.
2. The police officer shall inform the arrested person when he is brought to the police station of this right.
3. An entry shall be required to be made in the diary as to who was informed of the arrest. These
protections from power must be held to flow from Articles 21 and 22(1) and enforced strictly.

It shall be the duty of the Magistrate, before whom the arrested person is produced, to satisfy himself that
these requirements have been complied with.

4. The above requirements shall be followed in all cases of arrest till legal provisions are made in
this behalf. These requirements shall be in addition to the rights of the arrested persons found in
the various police manuals. These requirements are not exhaustive. The Directors General of
Police of all the States in India shall issue necessary instructions requiring due observance of
these requirements. In addition, departmental instruction shall also be issued that a police officer
making an arrest should also record in the case diary, the reasons for making the arrest.

Supreme Court Directives

1. Arrests are not be made in a routine manner. The officer making the arrest must
be able to justify its necessity on the basis of some preliminary investigation.
2. An arrested person should be al owed to inform a friend or relative about the arrest and
where s/he is being held. The arresting officer must inform the arrested person when s/he is
brought to the police station of this right and is required to make an entry in the diary as to who
was informed.
3. It is the duty of the magistrate before whom the arrested person is produced to
satisfy her/himself that the above requirements have been complied with.

Court further emphasis that arrests should not be made, unless they are absolutely necessary and there is
no other way except arresting the accused to ensure her/his presence before the criminal justice system or
to prevent her/him from commit ing more crimes or tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.
Unnecessary and unjustified arrests lead to harassment and loss of faith in the system. They also account
for 43.2 % expenditure in jails according to the Third Report of the National Police Commission. On the
other hand, corruptly or maliciously detaining people without recording an arrest is punishable by
a maximum sentence of seven years according to Section 220 Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Other landmark cases on Arrest and Detention:

SHEELA BARSE V STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 1983 SCC 96

Sheela Barse - a journalist and activist for prisoners rights - wrote to the Supreme Court saying that of the
women prisoners interviewed by her in Bombay Central Jail, five admitted that they had been assaulted in
police lock-up. Given the seriousness of the allegations, the Court admitted a writ petition on the basis of
the letter and asked the College of Social Work, Bombay to visit the Central Jail to find out whether the
allegations were true. The College submitted a detailed report which, in addition to admitting that
excesses against women were taking place, pointed out that arrangements for providing legal assistance to
prisoners were inadequate.

Supreme Court Observations

Failure to provide legal assistance to poor and impoverished persons violates constitutional guarantees.
Article 39-A [Directive Principle of State Policy] casts a duty on the State to secure the operation of a
legal system that promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity. The right to legal aid is also a
fundamental right under articles 14 [Equality before Law] and 21 [Right to Life and Personal Liberty].
The Court expressed serious concern about the plight of prisoners, unable to afford legal counsel to
defend themselves. They said that not having access to a lawyer was responsible for individual rights
against harassment and torture not being enforced. Stressing the urgent need to provide legal aid not only
to women prisoners but to all prisoners whether they were under-trials or were serving sentences, the
Court said that an essential requirement of justice is that every accused person should be defended by a
lawyer. Denial of adequate legal representation is likely to result in injustice, and every act of injustice
corrodes the foundations of democracy and rule of law. Expressing serious concern about the safety and
security of women in police lock-up, the Supreme Court directed that a woman judge should be appointed
to carry out surprise visits to police stations to see that all legal safeguards are being enforced.

Supreme Court Directives

1. Female suspects must be kept in separate lock-ups under the supervision of female constables.
2. Interrogation of females must be carried out in the presence of female policepersons.
3. A person arrested without a warrant must be immediately informed about the grounds of arrest and the
right to obtain bail.
4. As soon as an arrest is made, the police should obtain from the arrested person, the name of a relative
or friend whom s/he would like to be informed about the arrest. The relative or friend must then be
informed by the police.
5. The police must inform the nearest Legal Aid Committee as soon as an arrest is made and the person is
taken to the lock-up.
6. The Legal Aid Committee should take immediate steps to provide legal assistance to the arrested
person at State cost, provided such person is willing to accept legal assistance.
7. The magistrate before whom an arrested person is produced shall inquire from the arrested person
whether she/he has any complaints against torture and maltreatment in police custody. The magistrate
shall also inform such person of her/his right to be medically examined.
ICCHU DEVI CHORARIA V UNION OF INDIA 1980 SCC 531

Mahendra Choraria, who was accused with smuggling, was put in preventive detention by the Customs
Department under a special Act [COFEPOSA]. The Customs Department detained him on the basis of
two tape-recorded conversations, some documents and statements of several persons. Choraria argued
before the Supreme Court in a writ petition that his detention was illegal because he was not provided
with copies of statements, documents and other materials that were being relied upon to detain him. The
petition maintained that undue delay in providing these materials amounted to denying him an
opportunity to make a representation before a court against his detention.

Supreme Court Observations

Article 22 (5) of the Constitution lays down that whenever a person is preventively detained under a
special law, the detaining authority should as soon as possible communicate to the arrested person, the
grounds of detention and afford her/him the earliest opportunity to make a representation against the
detention. The Supreme Court asserted that if the detaining authority wants to preventively detain a
person, it must do so in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and the law and if there is any
breach of any such provision, the rule of law requires that the detenu [detained person] must be set at
liberty. They said that it was the duty of the courts to satisfy themselves that al procedural safeguards
have been observed in this respect. Though COFEPOSA was framed to eradicate the evil of smuggling,
the Court said that it must not be forgotten that the power of preventive detention is a draconian power,
justified only in the interest of public security and order and it is tolerated in a free society only as a
necessary evil. Detaining people without trial constitutes an encroachment on personal liberty - one of the
most cherished values of humankind. They said that personal liberty is a most precious possession, life
without it would not be worth living. Therefore, the courts have a duty to uphold it. Prescribing the under-
mentioned procedure, the Supreme Court affirmed that the law laid down in this case would be equal y
applicable in the event of preventive detention under any other Act.

Supreme Court Directives

1. The detained person must be supplied copies of documents, statements and other materials on the basis
of which s/he is being detained, without delay.

2. The authorities who have preventively detained a person must consider the representation of the
detained person against the detention as soon as possible.

3. The burden of proving that the detention is in accordance with the procedure established by law lies on
the detaining authority.
Conclusion

Good policing involves respecting human rights and upholding the Rule of Law. This has been
strongly emphasised by the Supreme Court and the National Human Rights Commission. As
protectors of people’s rights, police officers are expected to display integrity, transparency,
accountability and most of all respect for human dignity. Rule of Law requires that the police ñ
an integral part of the criminal justice system ñ must respect and uphold the rights and liberty of
individuals. Sadly, despite democracy and freedom for over fifty years now, there still is a lot of
distrust between the public and the police. People see the police as an authoritarian organisation,
removed from society, with lit le or no respect for the rights of the ordinary person. However,
today we live in a democratic country and the police as a vital component of the State must
operate according to democratic norms. Individual rights occupy a pride of place in our
constitutional culture. Any encroachment upon them, whether it is non-registration of a First
Information Report [FIR]; launching a malicious investigation; illegal y detaining suspected
persons or their families; carrying out an improper arrest; using excessive force; or torturing
suspects to extract confessions goes against the basic principles of democratic policing. Sharing
information with the public, securing their cooperation in policing, and acknowledging that
individuals have a right to privacy and security of their person are essential elements of
democratic policing- the furtherance of which, is the aim of this compilation.
Biliography:

1. K N Chandrasekharan Pillai (ed): Kelkar’s Lectures on Criminal Procedure, 4th Ed.

Reprint , Eastern Book Company, Lucknow.

2. Mandeep Tiwana(edited by: Maja Daruwala), Human Rights And Policing: Landmark Supreme
Court Directives & National Human Rights Commission Guidelines.

3. Ratanlal &Dhirajlal: Criminal Procedure Code, 18th Ed, 2006, Wadhwa & Co. Nagpur.

Webliography:

1. www.manupatrafast.com/default/onlinemanual/CitationSearch.html retrieved on 18 oct,2014.

2. www.indiankanoon.org/html retrieved on 18 oct,2014.

3. en.wikipedia.org/html retrieved on 19 oct,2014

4. www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/56 retrieved on 19 0ct, 2014

5. www.google.co.in for basic searches on 18 oct, 2014