LAW OF ARREST AND DETENTION

Subject Title CRIMINAL LAW-II

Submitted To: - Mr. Vinod Kumar, Ms. Sarita Sangwan, ProI. S.K.D. Rao
Submitted By- Ankita Mathur
Roll No.-11LLB10
2nd year, 3rd semester










National Law University, Delhi

APTER-1
INTRODUTON
"The apprehending or detaining oI a person in order to be Iorthcoming to answer an alleged or
suspected crime" is known oI citizen`s arrest according to Black`s Law Dictionary.
1
The
deIinition oI detention given in this dictionary is 'the act oI keeping back or withholding, either
accidentally or by design, a person or thing.
2
Another deIinition oI arrest can be placing a person
under lawIul detention against their will Ior the purposes oI the law enIorcement.
3
Thus, mostly
arrest takes place when detention is there. An arrest occurs when a person reasonably believes he
is not Iree to leave due to the actions oI law enIorcement oIIicers. Once an arrest has occurred
and questions are asked, law enIorcement oIIicers must provide Miranda warnings (the right to
remain silent, the right to an attorney, etc.). However, iI no questions are asked (other than
questions to determine basic biographical inIormation such as name and address), the warnings
need not be given.
4


1.1. HYPOTHESIS
The law oI arrest and detention are intermingled in India. S. 22 oI the Constitution oI India
provides Ior the law oI arrest and detention in India.

1.2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY,
The method oI research used by the researcher is the doctrinal research, that is secondary
sources are used.

1.3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. Are there any discrepancy between law oI arrest provided in the statute and practice?
2. II yes, what are those discrepancies?



1
Bryan A. Garner, Black`s Law Dictionary, Thomson Reuters Publications, 9
th
edition, 2009 , pp. 65.
2
Ibid, pp. 122.
3
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/arrestor.htm, visited on 19t h October 2011.
4
http://criminal-law.Ireeadvice.com/criminal-law/arrestsandsearches/arrest-detention.htm, visited on 5th
November 2011
2.4. CHAPTERISATION
1. Chapter I deals with the Introduction
2. Chapter II deals with the Law oI arrest and detention: a general overview
3. Chapter III deals with the recommendations oI various committees
4. Chapter IV deals with the cases
5. Chapter V deals with the constitution oI India and law oI arrest and detention
6. Chapter VI deals with the conclusions.
























APTER-II
LAW OF ARREST AND DETENTION

1.1.LAW OF ARREST AND OMMON LAW
Ideally, the personal liberty oI an individual should not be violated except upon conviction
aIter a Iull and Iair trial. However, in order to bring wrong-doers to justice and to ensure the
saIety oI citizens, the power oI arrest is conceded to police oIIicers and citizens in deIined
and limited circumstances. A police oIIicer has wider powers than a citizen. The basic rule is
that no arrest can be made without a warrant Irom a competent judge except where treason,
Ielony or a breach oI the peace has been committed or is being attempted or is reasonably
apprehended. A citizen's authority is limited to cases where such acts have actually taken
place, whereas a police oIIicer can act on reasonable suspicion. Under the common law no
arrest Ior a misdemeanour is possible without a warrant. However, this prohibition has been
relaxed somewhat in certain general and special statutes. An example is Section 352 oI the
New South Wales Crimes Act.
5

In cases where a warrant is necessary Ior arrest, the warrant has to be suIIiciently speciIic
and is issued only when the competent court is satisIied oI the reasons Ior arrest.
There are other saIeguards in relation to arrest. Police oIIicers are required to inIorm suspects
oI the reasons Ior arrest and the Iailure to give reasons can make the police oIIicer liable to
damages Ior Ialse imprisonment. Non-disclosure oI reasons can also justiIy resistance to
arrest. Those who execute an arrest are also enjoined Irom using unnecessary Iorce on
suspects.
6

In cases oI detention the Iundamental principle regarding the power oI arrest is that it is
granted strictly Ior the purpose or bringing a suspect beIore a court oI law. In many
jurisdictions a time limit (oIten as short as 24 hours) is speciIied Ior such purpose and is
coupled with a duty to produce the suspect in court as soon as practicable. What this rule
means is that aIter arrest, a person cannot be detained Ior any other purpose. In England,
courts have permitted a limited power to detain a person Ior the purpose oI investigating the

3
hLLp//wwwourclvlllsaLloncom/cooray/rlghLs/chap7hLm vlslLed on 3
Lh
november 2011
6

crime but in Australia a person cannot be arrested or conIined purely Ior the purpose oI
investigation. Bales v Parmeter
7
. Detention Ior longer periods is only possible as judicially
determined, as in the case oI remand pending trial or imprisonment upon conviction.

1.1.1. Law of arrest and Indian statutes
Everyone cherish Ireedom, be it leItist or rightist, human being or animal being, Prime
minister oI India or a Iootpath dweller oI Mumbai. The right oI personal liberty oI every
individual is one oI the most cherished Iundamental rights in our Constitution oI India.
The post Independence era OF INDIA shows that most oI the laws inherited Irom British
Rule that had colonial exploitation as their basis, were leIt untouched. The present Police
Laws indeed so inherited is largely leIt intact. In the words oI Justice MN
VENKATACHALLIAH in oginder Kumar Vs State Of UP
8
'No arrest can be made
because it is lawIul Ior the police oIIicer to do so. The existence oI the power to arrest is
one thing. The justiIication Ior the exercise oI it is quite another.
The police oIIicer must be able to justiIy the arrest apart Irom his power to do so. Arrest
and detention in police lock-up oI a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation
and selI-esteem oI a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere
allegation oI commission oI an oIIence made against a person.
9

Chapter V oI the Code oI Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with the arrest oI persons. The
police also have the authority to arrest a person without a warrant.
10
In certain situations a
person can be arrested iI he is accused oI non cognizable oIIence and does not give name
and residence or gives Ialse name or residence, such person may be arrested only Ior the
limited purpose oI ascertaining his name and residence.
11
Section 43 and 44 deal with the
circumstances when the arrest oI the accused is made by a private person
12
or a
magistrate respectively.
13
Also there has been a provision made Ior the members oI the

7
(1935) 35 S R (NS W) 182, 188-89
8
AIR1994SC1349, 1994(2)BLJR975, 1994CriLJ1981, 1994(2)Crimes106(SC), JT1994(3)SC423,
1994(1)KLT919(SC), 1994(2)SCALE662, (1994)4SCC260, |1994|3SCR661
9
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/The-law-oI-Arrest-in-India-2667.asp, visited on 10
th
November 2011.
10
S. 41, The Code OI Criminal Procedure, 1973
11
S. 42, The Code OI Criminal Procedure, 1973
12
S. 43, The Code OI Criminal Procedure, 1973
13
S. 44, The Code OI Criminal Procedure, 1973

Armed Forces Irom being arrested under sections 41 to 44. Section 46 sets out the
manner in which the arrest should be made to protect them. The police oIIicer is even
allowed to enter a place iI he has reason to believe that the person to be arrested has
entered into that place or is within that place. Section 48 empowers the police oIIicers to
pursue the oIIenders into any place in India beyond their jurisdiction. Section 49 however
provides that 'the person arrested shall not be subjected to more restraint than is
necessary to prevent his escape. Section 50 creates an obligation upon the police oIIicer
to communicate to the person arrested Iull particulars oI the oIIence Ior which he is
arrested or other grounds Ior such arrest Iorthwith. Section 51 provides Ior search oI
arrested person while section 52 empowers the police oIIicer to seize oIIensive weapons
Irom the arrested person. Sections 53 and 54 provide Ior medical examination oI the
arrested person at the request oI the police oIIicer or at the request oI the arrested person,
as the case may be. Section 55 prescribes the procedure to be Iollowed when a police
oIIicer deputes his subordinate to arrest a person without warrant. Section 56 oI the
Constitution, provides that the person arrested shall not be kept in the custody oI a police
oIIicer Ior a longer period than is reasonable and that in any event such period shall not
exceed 24 hours exclusive oI the time necessary Ior the journey Irom the place oI arrest
to the magistrate`s court. Section 58 casts an obligation upon the oIIicers in charge oI
police station to report to the speciIied authorities oI arrests made without warrant within
their jurisdiction and oI the Iact whether such persons have been admitted to bail or not.
Section 59 says that no person arrested by a police oIIicer shall be discharged except on
his own bond or bail or under the special order oI the magistrate. Section 60, which is the
last section in the chapter, empowers the person having the lawIul custody to pursue and
retake the arrested person iI he escapes or is rescued Irom his custody.

1.1.2. FALLACIES IN THE Cr.P.C.

But the practical approach is quiet diIIerent as section 41 and 42 oI Cr.P.C. shows the width
oI the power oI arrest vested in police oIIicers. Section 41(b) empowers a police oIIicer to
arrest a person who is in possession oI 'any implement oI house breaking and the burden is
placed upon that person to satisIy that possession oI such implement is not without 'lawIul
excuse. Here, the deIinition oI lawIul excuse Ior house breaking is no one given. Similarly,
clause (d). Any person Iound in possession oI stolen property 'and who may be reasonably
suspected oI having committed an oIIence with reIerence to such thing.
14


1.2.LAW OF DETENTION
India is one oI the Iew countries in the world where laws allowing preventive detention enjoy
constitutional validity even during peacetime. Normal1y preventive detention is resorted to
against enemy aliens in emergencies such as war when the evidence in possession oI the
detaining authority is not suIIicient to secure the immediate conviction oI the detenu by the
normal legal process. In India the history oI preventive detention dates back to the early days oI
the British rule when under the Bengal Regulation III oI 1818 (the Bengal State Prisoners
Regulation) the government was empowered to detain anybody on mere suspicion. There was
also Rule 26 oI the Rules Iramed under the DeIence oI India Act 1939, again a war time
legislation, which allowed the detention oI a person iI it was "satisIied with respect to that
particular person that such detention was necessary to prevent him Irom acting in any manner
prejudicial" to the deIence and saIety oI the country
15
.
In the normal course oI things preventive detention laws should have lapsed aIter India attained
Independence; but perhaps as the Republic oI India had its birth amidst the ravages oI civil
commotion involving huge loss oI lives and property, the Iramers oI our Constitution decided to
retain preventive detention as a means to curb anti-national activity. Thus, the Preventive
Detention Act was passed by Parliament in 1950. AIter the expiry oI this Act in 1969, the
Maintenance oI Internal Security Act (MISA) was enacted in 1971, Iollowed by its economic
adjunct the Conservation oI Foreign Exchange and Prevention oI Smuggling Activities Act
(COFEPOSA) in 1974 and the Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) in
1985. Though MISA and TADA have been repealed, COFEPOSA continues to be operative
along with other similar laws such as the National Security Act (NSA) 1980, the Prevention oI
Blackmarketing and Maintenance oI Essential Commodities Act 1980 and the draconian

lawcommissionoIindia.nic.in/reports/177rptp2.pdI, visited on 19
th
September 2011, at 9:15 p.m.
15
Emp. vs. Sibnath A. 1945 P.C.l56.
Prevention oI Terrorism Act (POTA) 2002; not to mention laws with similar provisions enacted
by the State governments.
16







APTER-III
REOMMENDATIONS BY VARIOUS OMMISSIONS: A PASE OF
IMPROVEMENT IN LAWS OF ARREST AND DETENTION IN INDIA

The problems oI police in this country have been examined extensively by various
commissions and committees appointed since Independence. The appointment oI the
Working Group on Police by the Administrative ReIorms Commission in 1966 was the Iirst
sign oI central government`s interest in the subject. This was Iollowed by the setting up oI
the Gore Committee on Police Training in 1971. Then came the most signiIicant initiative
the appointment oI the Iirst National Police Commission (NPC) aIter Independence.
Recently, the central government again became active. They Iirst set up the Ribeiro
Committee on Police ReIorms in 1998 on the directions oI the Supreme Court and last year
sprang a surprise by the sudden announcement about setting up another committee- the
Padmanabhiah Committee on Police ReIorms. Judged against the present trend and against

16
http://www.hindu.com/op/2004/09/07/stories/2004090700101500.htm, visited on 18
th
September 2011 at 9:20
p.m.
the deIinite need to regulate and control police powers by establishing accountability
structures, which work openly, quickly, eIIectively and impartially and have public
credibility, the Committee`s recommendations on this issue oI major public concern do not
inspire conIidence.
17
Another committee Iormed aIter the padmanabhaiah committee was
the Dharamvir committee. Going by the Dharamvir Commission report (oI 1976) about 200
more police stations are required in Karnataka. We have prepared plan Ior 150 police
stations in next three years. The other issue is basic training as well as in-service training to
improve the proIessional knowledge, skills and attitude oI policemen.
18
Another committee
in this direction was the Mallimath Committee. According to the Committee "quest Ior the
truth shall be the Ioundation oI the Criminal Justice System"
19
. This laudable philosophical
goal is justiIied by an assertion that "For the common man truth and justice are
synonymous"
20


The truth about the Committee however is that it is more concerned about convictions than
about truth or justice. The Committee proceeds on the assumption that "..the system is in
Iavour oI the accused."
21
And it is this assumption that inIorms the discussions and
recommendations in the report.
'More specifically, the aim (of the criminal fustice system) is to reduce the level
of criminality in society by ensuring, maximum detection of reported crimes,
conviction of the accused persons without delay, awarding appropriate
punishments to the convicted to meet the ends of fustice and to prevent
recidivism. (Report, p.21, 1.40, emphasis added)


17
www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/aj/.../analysispadmanabhaiah.pdI, visited on 20
th
September 2011, at
2:30 p.m.
18
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/40237/steps-aIoot-improve-morale-eIIiciency.html, visited on 18
th

sepetember, 2011 at 6:00p.m.
19
Report, p.266, (1)
20
Report, p.28
21
Report, p.27, 2.15










APTER- IV
ASES DISUSSED

1. JOGINDER KUMAR V. STATE OF U.P.
22

'The horizon oI human rights is expanding. At the same time, the crime rate is also
increasing. OI late, this court has been receiving complaints about violation oI human
rights because oI indiscriminate arrests. The Supreme Court oI India in Joginder Kumar
v. State oI U.P headed by Justice Venkatchalliah,bench oI Justice Mohan and Justice
Anand gave the judgment that 'No arrest can be made because it is lawIul Ior the police
oIIicer to do so. The existence oI the power to arrest is one thing. The justiIication Ior the
exercise oI it is quite another. The police oIIicer must be able to justiIy the arrest apart
Irom his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up oI a person can cause

22
AIR 1994 SC 1349.
incalculable harm to the reputation and selI-esteem oI a person. No arrest can be made in
a routine manner on a mere allegation oI commission oI an oIIence made against a
person. It would be prudent Ior a police oIIicer in the interest oI protection oI the
constitutional rights oI a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be
made without a reasonable satisIaction reached aIter some investigation as to the
genuineness and bona Iides oI a complaint and a reasonable belieI both as to the person's
complicity and even so as to the need to eIIect arrest. Denying a person oI his liberty is a
serious matter. 'There must be some reasonable justiIication in the opinion oI the oIIicer
eIIecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justiIied. Except in heinous oIIences,
an arrest must be avoided iI a police oIIicer issues notice to person to attend the Station
House and not to leave the Station without permission would do.
23





2. SMT. NANDINI SATPATHY V. P.L. DANI
24

Quoting Lewis Mayers, stated:
'To strike the balance between the needs oI law enIorcement on the one hand and the
protection oI the citizen Irom oppression and injustice at the hands oI the law-
enIorcement machinery on the other is a perennial problem oI statecraIt. The pendulum
over the years has swung to the right. Again in para 21, at page 1033, it has been
observed:
'We have earlier spoken oI the conIlicting claims requiring reconciliation. Speaking
pragmatically, there exists a rivalry between societal interest in eIIecting crime detection
and constitutional rights which accused individuals possess. Emphasis may shiIt,
depending on circumstances, in balancing these interests as has been happening in
America. Since Miranda
25
there has been retreat Irom stress on protection oI the accused
and gravitation towards society`s interest in convicting law-breakers. Currently, the trend

23
http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp?tInm11479, visited on 18
th
September 2011 at 5:00p.m.
24
AIR 1978 SC 1025 at page 1032.
25
(1966) 334 US 436.
in the American jurisdiction according to legal journals is that respect Ior (constitutional)
principles is eroded when they leap their proper bounds to interIere with the legitimate
interests oI society in enIorcement oI its laws..
26
. Our constitutional perspective has,
thereIore, to be relative and cannot aIIord to be absolutist, especially when torture
technology, crime escalation and other social variables aIIect the application oI principles
in producing humane justice.
It would equally be relevant to quote para 24, which reads as Iollows:
'The above guidelines are merely the incidents oI personal liberty guaranteed under the
Constitution oI India. No arrest can be made because it is lawIul Ior the Police OIIicer to
do so. The existence oI the power to arrest is one thing. The justiIication Ior the exercise
oI it is quite another. The Police OIIicer must be able to justiIy the arrest apart Irom his
power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up oI a person can cause incalculable
harm to the reputation and selI-esteem oI a person. No arrest can be made in a routine
manner on a mere allegation oI commission oI an oIIence made against a person.
27

3. D.K. BASU V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
28

Paras 36 to 40 which contain the Iinal directions issued in the said decision read as
Iollows:
'We, thereIore, consider it appropriate to issue the Iollowing requirements to be Iollowed
in all cases oI arrest or detention, till legal provisions are made in that behalI, as
preventive measures:
1. The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation oI the
arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identiIication and name tags with their
designations. The particulars oI all such police personnel who handle interrogation oI the
arrestee must be recorded in a register.
2. That the police oIIicer carrying out the arrest oI the arrestee shall prepare a memo oI
arrest at the time oI arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who
may be either a member oI the Iamily oI the arrestee or a respectable person oI the

26
Couch v. United States (1972) 409 US 322, 336
27
Law commission oI India consultation paper on law relating to arrest part I law oI arrest Annexure 1.
28
AIR 1997 SC 610.
locality Irom where the arrest is made. It shall also be countersigned by the arrestee and
shall contain the time and date oI arrest.
3. A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police
station or interrogation center or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one Iriend or
relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welIare being inIormed, as
soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place
unless the attesting witness oI the memo oI arrest is himselI such a Iriend or a relative oI
the arrestee.
4. The time, place oI arrest and venue oI custody oI an arrestee must be notiIied by the
police where the next Iriend or relative oI the arrestee lives outside the district or town
through the Legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station oI the area
concerned telegraphically within a period oI 8 to 12 hours aIter the arrest.
5. The person arrested must be made aware oI this right to have someone inIormed oI his
arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained.
6. An entry must be made in the diary at the place oI detention regarding the arrest oI the
person which shall also disclose the name oI the next Iriend oI the person who has been
inIormed oI the arrest and the names and particulars oI the police oIIicials in whose
custody the arrestee is.
7. The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time oI his arrest
and major and minor injuries, iI 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 oIIicer
eIIecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee.
8. 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 oI approved doctors
appointed by Director, Health Services oI the concerned State or Union Territory,
Director, Health Services should prepare such a panel Ior all Tehsils and Districts as well.
9. Copies oI all the documents including the memo oI arrest, reIerred to above, should be
sent to the Ilaqa Magistrate Ior his record.
10. The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not
throughout the interrogation.
11. A police control room should be provided at all district and State headquarters, where
inIormation regarding the arrest and the place oI custody oI the arrestee shall be
communicated by the oIIicer causing the arrest, within 12 hours oI eIIecting the arrest
and at the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous police board.

Failure to comply with the requirements hereinabove mentioned shall apart Irom
rendering the concerned oIIicial liable Ior departmental action, also render him liable to
be punished Ior contempt oI Court and the proceedings Ior contempt oI Court may be
instituted in any High Court oI the country, having territorial jurisdiction over the
matter.
29







4. COMMON CAUSE, A REGISTERED SOCIETY` V. UOI
30
.
5. COMMON CAUSE, A REGISTERED SOCIETY` V. UOI
31

The Supreme Court directed in two cases ommon ause, A Registered Society v. UOI
and ommon ause, A Registered Society v. UOI directed that that undertrial prisoners
whose cases have been pending beyond a particular period should be enlarged on bail or
on personal bond. These directions applied not only to cases pending on the dates oI
those orders but were also eIIective prospectively. The number oI arrests Ior petty
oIIences is substantial, iI not more than the arrests made Ior serious oIIences.
32


6. CHALLA RAMKONDA REDDY V. STATE OF A.P.
33


29
www.alrc.net/doc/mainIile.php/clindia/143, visited on 17
th
September 2011, at 8:00a.m.
30
(1996) 4 SCC 33.
31
1996 (6) SCC 775.
32
supra. As 5
33
AIR 1989 AP 235.
The decision oI A.P. High Court in Challa Ramkonda Reddy v. State oI A.P. which has
recently aIIirmed by the Supreme Court in AIR 2000 SC 2083 - and the examples given
therein, wherein the State would be liable Ior damages Ior the negligent or indiIIerent
conduct oI police/jail authorities should be kept in mind. To put brieIly, take a case where a
person is arrested Ior simple theIt or simple rioting; he is a heart patient; he is not allowed to
take his medicines with him at the time oI his arrest and no medicines are provided to him in
spite oI his asking and he dies. Or a case, where such a person (though carrying his
medicines) suIIers a heart attack and no reasonably prompt steps are taken Ior providing
medical aid to him by the concerned authorities and he dies. It is obvious that had he not
been arrested, his Iamily and Iriends would have taken care oI him. Should he die Ior want oI
medical help, only because he has been arrested and detained Ior a minor oIIence. It would
be too big a punishment. In such cases, State would be liable Ior damages.
34






7. SHAMSHUL KANWAR V. STATE
35

In this case the court pointed out the vagueness prevailing in the country in the matter oI
maintaining the diary under section 172. The court reIerred, in the Iirst instance, to the Iact
that in every State there are Police Regulations/Police Standing Orders prescribing the
manner in which such diaries are to be maintained and that there is no uniIormity among
them. The court pointed out that in some States like Uttar Pradesh, the diary under section
172 is known as special diary` or case diary` and in some other States like Andhra Pradesh
and Tamilnadu, it is known as case diary`. The basis Ior distinction between special diary`
and case diary`, the court pointed out, may owe its origin to the words 'police diary or
otherwise occurring in section 162 CrPC. Such an arrangement would also go to ensure that
the time, place and circumstances oI the arrest oI an accused are also properly recorded and
reIlected by such record, which is indeed a statutory record. ascertained during the
investigation which obviously relate to statements recorded by the oIIicer in terms oI section

34
Supra as 14
33
AIR 1995 SC 1748.
161 and other relevant material gathered during the investigation. In view oI this state oI
aIIairs, the Supreme Court suggested a legislative change to rectiIy this conIusion and
vagueness in the matter oI maintainance oI diary under section 172. It is thereIore appropriate
that section 172 be amended appropriately indicating the manner in which the diary under
section 172 is to be maintained, its contents and the manner in which its contents are
communicated to the court and the superior oIIicers, iI any.
36












APTER-V
ONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND LAW OF ARREST AND
DETENTION
Every person has equal rights subject to certain conditions as prescribed by the
constitution oI India. Even an accused has certain rights which the constitution
guarantees it to him such as Section 50 corresponds to clause (1) oI Article 22 oI the
Constitution creates an obligation upon the police oIIicer to communicate to the person
arrested Iull particulars oI the oIIence Ior which he is arrested or other grounds Ior such
arrest Iorthwith. It also provides that where a person is arrested Ior a bailable oIIence
without a warrant, the police oIIicer shall inIorm the person arrested that he is entitled to
be released on bail and that he may arrange Ior sureties on his behalI; Section 56

36
Supra as 9
corresponds to clause (2) oI Article 22 oI the Constitution, provides that the person
arrested shall not be kept in the custody oI a police oIIicer Ior a longer period than is
reasonable and that in any event such period shall not exceed 24 hours exclusive oI the
time necessary Ior the journey Irom the place oI arrest to the magistrate`s court. OI
course iI the magistrate permits the police oIIicer to keep such person in his custody, he
can do so beyond the period oI 24 hours. Also, Clause (1) oI Article 22 oI the
Constitution which is one oI the Iundamental rights in Part III, declares that 'no person
who is arrested shall be detained in custody without having inIormed, as soon as maybe,
on the grounds Ior such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult and to be
deIended by a legal practitioner oI his choice. Clause (2) oI Article 22 says that every
person arrested and detained in custody shall be produced beIore the nearest magistrate
within a period oI 24 hours oI such arrest excluding oI course the time necessary Ior the
journey Irom the place oI arrest to the court oI magistrate. Clause (3) oI Article 22
however provides that clauses (1) and (2) shall not apply to an enemy-alien or to a person
who has been arrested under any law providing Ior preventive detention. 'The rights are
inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) oI the Constitution and require to be recognized and
scrupulously protected. For eIIective enIorcement oI these Iundamental rights, we issue
the Iollowing requirements:
1. An arrested person being held in custody is entitled, iI he so requests to have one
Iriend relative or other person who is known to him or likely to take an interest in
his welIare told as Iar as is practicable that he has been arrested and where he is
being detained.
2. The Police OIIicer shall inIorm the arrested person when he is brought to the police
station oI this right.
3. An entry shall be required to be made in the Diary as to who was inIormed oI the
arrest. These protections Irom power must be held to Ilow Irom Articles 21 and
22(1) and enIorced strictly.
Also section 300 oI the constitution oI India is taken care oI while deciding the cases like that oI
Kasturilal case.





















APTER-VI
ONLUSIONS
Law oI arrest and detention has already well established in India through Chapter- V oI the
CrPC. Still there is a lot more amendments to be made in the laws. For this purpose there were
many committees also Iormed such as Padmanabhaiah committee, Dharmavir Commiittee,
Mallimath committee etc. these committees helped in making suggestions and amendments in
the law oI arrest and detention in India. Also many cases such as Joginder Kumar case, D.K.
Basu case, Neelabati Behera case etc. helped in improvement oI this system.
Basically deIinition oI arrest is nowhere given in CrPC. In very vague sense it means means oI
receiving inIormation. There are deprivation oI basic liberties oI a person.the oIIence committed
by an accused is oI two types cognizable and non cognizable. Non cognizable oIIence gives
power to police to arrest without warrant. According to a report oI law Commission more
oIIences should be made non cognizable. Chapter 5 oI CrPC illustrates the arrest in case oI a non
cognizable oIIence.
Padmanabhaiah committee emphasized on more oI oIIences being cognizable rather thatn non
cognizable. Dharamvir commission described Ior the Iirst time that 43.2 oI arrest are
superIluous. According to the CrPc only police, magistrate and private person can arrest and
there are 11 categories oI persons who can be arrested as prescribed by CrPC.
There are constitutional provisions also which protects the rights oI such accused persons as
under arrest or detention. These involve Article 14, 21, 22(1)(2)(3), and 300 oI the Constitution
oI India.these articles protects and saIeguards the rights oI persons arrested or detained