Criminal Procedure Code

Project On:
Arrest Of a Person

Harry Punyani

ROLL NO: 250/15

5th Semester, 3rd Year

2015-2020
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This project is most humbly submitted, without the fault to acknowledge the help the people
around have extended during the research work.

The first thank comes automatically from heart for Dr.Mukesh Kumar of CrPC who was
available with ease whenever we sought any kind of help. The concepts which he gave us
have been the base for this small piece of work.

Moreover I would like to thank my friends who were helpful throughout the work.

Harry punyani
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION-LAW OF ARREST

2. ILLEGAL ARREST

3. RELATED CASE LAWS

4.THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE FOLLOWEDIN ALL CASES OF ARREST OR

DETENTION AS PER RULING SHRI D.K. BASU VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL

5. CONCLUSION

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
 CASE LAW
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

In Joginder Kumar Vs State of U.P And Others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that
'' the arrest should not be merely on suspicion about the person's complicity in the crime
and the police officer must be satisfied about necessity and justification of such arrest on
the basis of some investigation and the reasons for arrest must be recorded by the police
officer in his diary and the arrest should normally be avoided except in cases of heinous
crime.
 INTRODUCTION
LAW OF ARREST

Chapter five of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with the arrest of persons.
Section 41 is the main section providing for situations when Police may arrest without
warrant. It reads as follows:

41. When police may arrest without warrant.- (1) Any police officer may without an order
from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person-

a) who has been concerned in any cognizable offence, or against whom a reasonable
complaint has been made or credible information has been received, or a reasonable
suspicion exists, of his having been so concerned; or

b) who has in his possession without lawful excuse, the burden of proving which excuse
shall lie on such person, any implement of house-breaking; or

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 specified 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. Any officer in charge of a police station may, in like manner, arrest or cause to be arrested
any person, belonging to one or more of the categories of persons specified in section 109
or section 110.

Section 42 specifies yet another situation where a police officer can arrest a person.
According to this section if a person commits an offence in the presence of a police officer
or where he has been accused of committing a non-cognizable offence and refuses, on
demand being made by a police officer to give his name and residence or gives false name
or residence, such person may be arrested but such arrest shall be only for the limited
purpose of ascertaining his name and residence. After such ascertaining, he shall be
released on executing a bond with or without sureties, to appear before a magistrate if so
required. In case the name and residence of such person cannot be ascertained within 24
hours from the date of arrest or if such person fails to execute a bond as required, he shall
be forwarded to the nearest magistrate having jurisdiction.

Section 43 speaks of a situation where an arrest can be made by a private person and the
procedure to be followed on such arrest. Section 44 deals with arrest by a magistrate.
Section 45 protects the members of the Armed Forces from being arrested under sections
41 to 44. Section 46 sets out the manner in which the arrest should be made and section 47
enables the police officer to enter a place if 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
officers to persue the offenders 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 (which corresponds to clause (1) of Article 22
of the Constitution) creates an obligation upon the police officer to communicate to the
person arrested full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for
such arrest forthwith. It also provides that where a person is arrested for a bailable offence
without a warrant, the police officer shall inform the person arrested that he is entitled to
be released on bail and that he may arrange for sureties on his behalf. Section 51 provides
for search of arrested person while section 52 empowers the police officer to seize offensive
weapons from the arrested person. Sections 53 and 54 provide for medical examination of
the arrested person at the request of the police officer or at the request of the arrested
person, as the case may be. Section 55 prescribes the procedure to be followed when a
police officer deputes his subordinate to arrest a person without warrant. Section 56 (which
corresponds to clause (2) of Article 22) of the Constitution, provides that the person
arrested shall not be kept in the custody of a police officer for a longer period than is
reasonable and that in any event such period shall not exceed 24 hours exclusive of the time
necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the magistrates court. Of course if the
magistrate permits the police officer to keep such person in his custody, he can do so
beyond the period of 24 hours. Section 58 casts an obligation upon the officers in charge of
police station to report to the specified authorities of arrests made without warrant within
their jurisdiction and of the fact whether such persons have been admitted to bail or not.
Section 59 says that no person arrested by a police officer shall be discharged except on his
own bond or bail or under the special order of the magistrate. Section 60, which is the last
section in the chapter, empowers the person having the lawful custody to pursue and retake
the arrested person if he escapes or is rescued from his custody.

Practical aspects of sections 41 and 42, CrPC.- A reading of the above provisions and, in
particular, of Sections 41 and 42 shows the width of the power of arrest vested in police
officers. Take for example, the ground in clause (b) of Section 41. It empowers a police
officer to arrest a person who is in possession of any implement of house breaking and
the burden is placed upon that person to satisfy that possession of such implement is not
without lawful excuse. What does an implement of house breaking mean? Any
iron/steel rod or any implement used by way-side repairers of punctured tyres can also be
used for house breaking. Similarly, clause (d). Any person found in possession of stolen
property and who may be reasonably suspected of having committed an offence with
reference to such thing. What a wide discretion? Why, take clause (a) itself. The situations
covered by it are: (i) a person who is concerned in any cognizable offence, (ii), a person
against whom a reasonable complaint is made that he is concerned in a cognizable
offence; (iii) a person against whom credible information is received showing that he is
concerned in any cognizable offence and (iv) a person who is reasonably suspected of
being concerned in any cognizable offence. The generality of language and the
consequent wide discretion vesting in police officers is indeed enormous and that has
been the very source of abuse and misuse. The qualifying words reasonable, credible
and reasonably in the Section mean nothing in practice. They have become redundant; in
effect.

Wider powers of arrest under section 151, CrPC.- Added to these provisions are the
preventive provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure which empower the police to arrest
persons. Section 151 empowers a police officer to arrest any person, without orders from a
Magistrate and without warrant, if it appears to such officer that such person is designing
to commit a cognizable offence and that the commission of offence cannot be prevented
otherwise. We do not think it necessary to emphasise the width of the power. It may be
true that the satisfaction of the police officer contemplated by the expression if it appears
to such officer is not subjective but is objective but in India, police officers making a
wrongful arrest whether under section 41 or 151, are seldom proceeded against much less
punished. There are too many risks involved in doing so.

Large number of persons arrested under sections 107 to 110, CrPC.- There is yet another
category viz., sections 107 to 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These sections
empower the Magistrate to call upon a person, in situations/circumstances stated therein,
to execute a bond to keep peace or to be on good behaviour. These provisions do not
empower a police officer to arrest such persons. Yet, the fact remains (a fact borne out by
the facts and figures referred to hereinafter) that large number of persons are arrested
under these provisions as well. And we are speaking of vast discretion not in a civil service
officer but in a member of armed force though technically speaking, it is also a civil service.

Constitutional protection.- Clause (1) of Article 22 of the Constitution which is one of the
fundamental rights in Part III, declares that no person who is arrested shall be detained in
custody without having informed, as soon as maybe, on 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.
Clause (2) of Article 22 says that every person arrested and detained in custody shall be
produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of 24 hours of such arrest excluding
of course the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of
magistrate. The clause further declares that no such person shall be detained in custody
beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate. Clause (3) of 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 for preventive detention.

Misuse of power of arrest.- Notwithstanding the safeguards contained in the Code of

Criminal Procedure and the Constitution referred to above, the fact remains that the power
of arrest is wrongly and illegally exercised in a large number of cases all over the country.
Very often this power is utilized to extort monies and other valuable property or at the
instance of an enemy of the person arrested. Even in case of civil disputes, this power is
being resorted to on the basis of a false allegation against a party to a civil dispute at the
instance of his opponent. The vast discretion given by the CrPC to arrest a person even in
the case of a bailable offence (not only where the bailable offence is cognizable but also
where it is non-cognizable) and the further power to make preventive arrests (e.g. under
section 151 of the CrPC and the several city police enactments), clothe the police with
extraordinary power which can easily be abused. Neither there is any in-house mechanism
in the police department to check such misuse or abuse nor does the complaint of such
misuse or abuse to higher police officers bear fruit except in some exceptional cases. We
must repeat that we are not dealing with the vast discretionary powers of a mere civil
service simpliciter, we are dealing with the vast discretionary powers of the members of a
service which is provided with firearms, which are becoming more and more sophisticated
with each passing day (which is technically called a civil service for the purposes of Service
Jurisprudence) and whose acts touch upon the liberty and freedom of the citizens of this
country and not merely their entitlements and properties. This is a civil service which is
being increasingly militarized, no doubt, to meet the emerging exigencies.

Balancing of societal interests and protection of rights of the accused.- We are not
unaware that crime rate is going up in our country for various reasons which need not be
recounted here. Terrorism, drugs and organized crime have become so acute that special
measures have become necessary to fight them not only at the national level but also at the
international level. We also take note of the fact that quite a number of policemen risk their
lives in discharge of their duties and that they are specially targeted by the criminal and
terrorist gangs. We recognize that in certain situations e.g., like the one obtaining in Kashmir
today, a literal compliance with several legal and constitutional safeguards may not be
practicable but we must also take note of and provide for the generality of the situation all
over the country and not be deflected by certain specific, temporary situations. We must
also take note of the fact that very often it is the poor who suffer most at the hands of
Police. Their poverty itself makes them suspects. This was said, though from a different
angle, by George Bernard Shaw. He said poverty is crime. But nowadays, even middle
classes and other well-to-do people, who do not have access to political power-wielders,
also are becoming targets of Police excesses. We recognize that ensuring a balance between
societal interest in peace and protection of the rights of the accused is a difficult one but it
has to be done. We also recognize the fundamental significance of the Human Rights, which
are implicit in Part III of our Constitution and of the necessity to preserve, protect and
promote the Rule of Law which constitutes the bedrock of our constitutional system.
 ILLEGAL ARREST
''The wrongdoer is accountable and the State is responsible

if the person in custody of the police is deprived of his

life except according to the procedure established by law. ''

It is solemn duty of the court to protect and uphold the basic human rights of the
weaker section of the society. Arrest can be made on not only in Criminal cases but also in
Civil cases. In order to bring arrestee before a Court of Law or otherwise secure of the
administration of the law, an arrest will usually be made. Arrest notifies a person who has
been accused of a crime and can deter and admonish such persons from committing some
more other crimes. It is already discussed by me in my previous Article titled '' Guidelines on
arrest of women and Judicial Officers'' , that Chapter V of Criminal Procedure Code,1973
deals with ''Arrest of persons''. To know about guidelines to be followed before arrest, it is
essential to refer the ruling Joginder Kumar vs State of Utter Pradesh . To know more as to
guidelines during arrest, it is necessary to refer the decison D.K.Basu vs State of West Bengal
. Further, to know about guidelines after arrest, it is essential to refer the ruling Sunil Batra
vs Delhi Administration , Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration and D.K.Basu's case.
A fortiori, it is also necessary to see Article 20(3) of Indian Constitution, the provisions of
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 relating to arrest, Article 7 of International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights,1966 and National Human Rights Commission guidelines on arrest and
National Police Commission: Third report etc.

MEANING OF ARREST:
The word '' ARREST'' is not defined in Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. But, Section
46 of Cr.P.C explains '' Arrest how made''. Under this section, a police officer is given power
to use all means necessary to effect the arrest in case of such person forcibly resists the
endeavour to arrest him, or attempts to evade the arrest. We refer a legal dictionary, it
conveys the meaning that ''to deprive one of his liberty by virtue of legal authority.'' It gives
another meaning: '' to stop''; and also conveys meaning: '' to seize''. Thus, it is known that
arrest means'' A seizure or forcible restraint; an exercise of the power to deprive a person of
his or her liberty; the taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, especially,
in response to a criminal charge ''.However, if we go through the rulings given in this article,
the meaning of arrest can succinctly be understood.
FALSE ARREST:
''A TORT (a civil wrong) that consists of an unlawful restraint of an individual's personal
liberty or freedom of movement by another purporting to act according to the law .'' An
action can be instituted for the damages ensuing from false arrest, such as loss of salary
while imprisoned, or injury to reputation that results in a pecuniary loss to the victim. Ill will
and malice are not elements of the tort, but if these factors are proven, Punitive Damages
can be awarded in addition to Compensatory Damages or nominal damages . In view of this,
it is clearly knwon that if illegal arrest is made, punitive damages in addition to
compensatory or nominal damages can be awarded. In this context, it is very essential to go
through the following case-law to know the consequences of illegal arrest.
 CASE-LAWS:
-In Boya Nallabothula Venkateswarlu and Ors Vs. The Circle Inspector of Police, Nandikotkur
PS and Ors (2010 (3) U.P.L.J 19 (HC)), the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court Held. ''Despite
having sufficient material to reach a finding that the arrest and detention caused by the
police are illegal, if we direct further enquiry to be made into the allegations leveled against
the investigation agency, it is nothing but diluting the issue and it may also afford an
opportunity to the police to harass the witnesses to speak on their behalf. Therefore, we
think it just and proper to record a finding since the material available on record in the facts
and circumstances of the case,enables us to record a finding that the investigation
conducted by the police is false to their own knowledge and that the arrest and detention of
the appeallants caused by the police are illegal. ''

In Boya Nallabothula Venkateswarlu and Ors'case (Cited supra), 2010 (3) U.P.L.J 19
(HC), the appellants were deliberately and purposely implicated in a grave charge of
murder. Therefore, in this case, the Hon'ble Division Bench of A.P. High Court directed the
State to pay compensation at the rate of Rs 1,000/- per day to each of the appellants for
causing their illegal arrest and wrongful detention for a period of 32 days. And held that the
compensation shall be in addition to the compensation for whcih the appellants are entitled
under private law remedy. It is also directed to recover the compensation paid, from the
police personnel who are responsible for illegal arrest and wrongful detention of the
appellants. It is further directed to the State to pay an amount of Rs.9,000/- to the
appellants towards expenses defrayed by them in prosecuting the writ petition and the writ
appeal.

Manka Gandhi vs Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, it was held that Article 21 is
controlled by Art 19, that is it must satisfy the requirement of Art.19 also; Mal-treatment of
Woman prisoners in Lock-up: Sheila Barse vs UOI, AIR 1986 SC 1773; Bar against solitary
confinment: Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 1675; Bar against Handcuffing
and fetters: Prema shankar vs Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1535; Illegal arrest:
Joginder Singh vs State of UP, (1994) 4 SCC 280; Arvind Singh Bagga vs St. of UP, AIR 1985 SC
117.

In Nilabati Bahera's case , it was held : Adverting to the grant of relief to the heirs of
a victim of custodial death for the infraction or invasion of his rights guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is not always enough to relegate him to the
ordinary remedy of a civil suit to claim damages for the tortious act of the State as that
remedy in private law indeed is available to the aggrieved party. The citizen complaining of
the infringement of the indefeasible right under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be told
that for the established violation of the fundamental right to life, he cannot get any relief
under the public law by the courts exercising writ jurisdiction. The primary source of the
public law proceedings stems from the prerogative writs and the courts have, therefore, to
evolve 'new tools' to give relief in public law by molding it according to the situation with a
view to preserve and protect the Rule of Law. While concluding his first Hamlyn Lecture in
1949 under the title "Freedom under the Law" Lord Denying in his own style warned:-

"No one can suppose that the executive will never be guilty of the sins that are common to
all of us. You may be sure that they will sometimes do thing which they ought not to do :
and will not do things that they ought to do. But if and when wrongs are thereby suffered by
any of us what is the remedy? Our procedure for securing our personal freedom is efficient,
our procedure for preventing the abuse of power is not. Just as the pick and shovel is no
longer suitable for the winning of coal, so also the procedure of mandamus, certiorari, and
actions on the case are not suitable for the winning of freedom in the new age. They must
be replaced by new and up-to date machinery, by declarations, injunctions and actions for
negligence... This is not the tasks of Parliament.... the courts must do this. Of all the great
tasks that lie ahead this is the greatest. Properly exercised the new powers of the executive
lead to the welfare state; but abused they lead to a totalitarian state. None such must even
be allowed in this country".

The informative and educative observations of O Dalaigh CJ in The State (at the
Prosecution of Quinn) v. Ryn [1965] IR 70 (122) deserve special notice. The Learned Chief
Justice said:

"It was not the intention of. the Constitution in guaranteeing the fundamental rights of the
citizen that these rights should be set at bought or circumvented. The intention was that
rights of substance were being assured to the individual and that the Courts were the
custodians of those rights. As a necessary corollary, it follows that no one can with impunity
set these rights at bought or circumvent them, and that the Court's powers in this regard
are as ample as the defence of the Constitution requires."

In Byrne Vs Ireland (1972) IR 241, Walsh J opines at p264: '' In several parts in the
constitution duties to make certain provisions for the benefit of the citizens are imposed on
the State in terms which bestow rights upon the citizen and, unless some contrary provision
appears in the Constitution, the Constitution must be deemed to have created a remedy for
the enforcement of thse rights. It follos that , where the right is one guaranteed by the
State, it is against the State that the remedy must be sought if there has been a failure to
discharge the constitutional obligation imposed.''
 In Joginder Kumar Vs State of U.P And Others , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
held that '' the arrest should not be merely on suspicion about the person's complicity in the
crime and the police officer must be satisfied about necessity and justification of such arrest
on the basis of some investigation and the reasons for arrest must be recorded by the police
officer in his diary and the arrest should normally be avoided except in cases of heinous
crime.''

In Bhim Singh, MLA Vs State of J&K And others , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that '' the police officers should have greatest regard for personal liberty of citizens, their
mala fide, high handed and authoritarian conduct in depriving the personal liberty of person
has to be strongly condemned.'' In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the
Respondent no.1, the State of Jammu and Kashmir to pay to Shri Bhim Singh a sum of Rs
50,000/- within two months.

In Lucknow Development Authority Vs M.K.Gupta , it was held that '' when public
servant by mala fide, oppressive and capricious acts in performance of official duty causes,
injustice, harassment and agony to common man and renders the State or its
instrumentality liable to pay damages to the person aggrieved from public fund, State or its
instrumentality is duty bound to later recover the amount of compensation so paid from the
public servant concerned.''

In Sanganagouda A. Veeranagouda and others vs State of Karnataka , in this case, ''

one ''V'' was arrested in a murder case on the direction of Office-in-charge of the police
station and subsequently died by hanging himself in the police station, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court considering the undisputed facts viz that at the relevant time A.1 was in charge of the
police station, A2 to A5 were working as police constables in the said police station, the
injuries sustained by the deceased Guddappa to his death was caused in the said police
station, the fact that the IO did not produce ''V'' before the nearest Magistrate within 24
hours by his arrest as required under Code of Criminal Procedure, held that the death of the
deceased has since occurred beyond 24 hours it would amount to wrongful confinement as
contemplated under Section 348 of IPC and accordingly upheld the order passed by the
Hon'ble High Court.''

In Hindustan Transmission Products Ltd Vs. State of Kerala, , a petition filed under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Hebeas Corpus to produce
two persons, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the Hon'ble District Judge, Ludhiana to
conduct an enquiry into the allegations made in the affidavit and counter affidavits and
submit a report as to the veracity of the statements made by either of the parties
particularly in relation to the illegal detention of the aforementioned two persons.
Thereafter on receiving the report of the District Judge, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that
the two persons were wrongfully deprived of their right to personal liberty by the police
authorities of the State of Punjab during the period from 09-08-1993 to 02-10-1993 and
directed the State of Punjab to pay each of them a sum of Rs 10,000/- by way of
compensation within a period of one month. The Hon'ble Supreme Court furthe made it
clear that the payment of this amount by way of compensation would not preclude Dalit
Saini and Omprakash from pursuing the remedy, civil as well as criminal, that is available to
them in law in respect of their wrongful confinement during this period.
 THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE FOLLOWEDIN
ALL CASES OF ARREST OR DETENTION AS PER
RULING SHRI D.K. BASU VS STATE OF WEST
BENGAL

''A. The following requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal
provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measurers :

(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 atleast one witness, who
may be either a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality
from where the arrest is made. It shall also be counter signed by the arrestee and shall
contain the time and date of arrest.

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

(4) 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 fives 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.

(5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of 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 of detention regarding the arrest of the
person which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the person who has been
informed of the arrest and the names and particulars of the, police officials in whose
custody the arrestee is.
 (7) 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/herbed, must be recorded at that time.
The "Inspection Memo" must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting
the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee.

(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 of approved doctors
appointed by Director, Health Services of the concerned State or Union Territory. Director,
Health Services should prepare such a penal for all Tehsils and Districts as well.

(9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be
sent to the illaga Magistrate for 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
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 conspicous notice board. (Para 36). B.
These requirements are in addition to the constitutional and statutory safeguards and do
not detract from various other directions given by the courts from time to time in
connection with the safeguarding of the rights and dignity of arrestee. (Para 39)''
 CONCLUSION:
A fortiori, it is apt to reminisce that'' procedure in Article 21 means fair, not formal
procedure. Law is reasonable law, not any enacted piece. As Art. 22 specifically spells out
the procedural safeguards for preventive and punitive detention, a law providing for such
detention should conform to Art. 22. '' Let me conclude this article with a hope that no
person shall not deliberately and purposely be implicated in any crime.

Guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court.- The effort of the

courts, and in particular of the Supreme Court over the last more than two decades has been to
circumscribe the vast discretionary power vested by law in Police by imposing several safeguards
and to regulate it by laying down numerous guidelines and by subjecting the said power to
several conditionalities. The effort throughout has been to prevent its abuse while leaving it free
to discharge the functions entrusted to the Police. While it is not necessary to refer to all of them
for the purpose of this working paper, it would be sufficient if we refer to a few of them (which
indeed reaffirm and recapitulate the directions and guidelines contained in earlier decisions). In
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (AIR 1994 SC 1349), the power of arrest and its exercise has
been dealt with at length.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

SMT. NILABATI BEHERA ALIAS LALIT BEHERA (THROUGH THE Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS., 1993 AIR 1960,
1993 SCR (2) 581

# Article ' Guidelines On Arrest of Women and Judicial Officers'' published in LAW SUMMARY 2010 (1) L.S,
15-04-2010,Part-7; and also published in online www.airwebworld.com

# 1994 (4) SCC 260

# AIR 1997 SC 610

# (1978) 4 SCC 494

# (1980) Cr L J 930

# (1979-1981),Page 32,PARA 15,48

. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/arrest

. It was further held'' Basing on the above material, we arrive at a definite and positive conclusion that the
investigation conducted by the police is false to their own knowledge and to somehow close the case file,
they gave their own conclusion to the case by involving the appellants in a false charge of murder and the
alleged deceased was in fact found to be very much alive. The police personnel concerned are, therefore,
guilty of illegal arrest and wrongful detention of the appellants and also liable for the offence of wrongful
confinement, which is punishable under Section 342 of IPC.''

. (1994) 4 SCC 260

. (1985) 4 SCC 677

. (1994) 1 SCC 243

. (2005) 12 SCC 468

. (1997) 11 SCC 623

. MANEKA GANDHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA, 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621