RIGHTS OF ARRESTED PERSON

Rights of Arrested Person

[Secs. 50, 54, 56 & 57]1
The arrest should not only be legal and justified but it should be effected strictly
according to the procedure established by law. The various powers of the police
for facilitating the making of arrests are subject to certain restraints. The
imposition of the restraints can be considered, to an extent, as the recognition of
the rights of the arrested person. There are, however, some other provisions
which have rather more expressly and directly created important rights in favour
of the arrested person. The Constitution of India also recognizes the rights of
arrested person under the Fundamental Rights.
(a) Information to the Arrestee [Sec. 50]2
The first and foremost requirement of lawful arrest is the notification of the
reasons of arrest along with the charges against him to the arrestee. Sec. 50
provides that the person arrested without any warrant should forthwith be
intimated the full particulars of the offence and the grounds for his arrest by the
police officer or other person making the arrest [sub-sec. (1)], and where the
offence is a bailable one, of his right to be released on bail [sub-sec. (2)].
It may be noted that when a person is arrested with a warrant, the police officer
executing the warrant of arrest shall notify the substance thereof to the arrestee
[Sec. 75]. Further, under Sec. 55, when a subordinate officer is deputed by a
senior police officer to arrest a person, such subordinate officer shall, before
making the arrest, notify to the person to be arrested the substance of the written
order given by the senior police officer specifying the offence or other cause for
which the arrest is to be made.
This is also a constitutional right guaranteed under Art. 22(1) of the Constitution
(No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being
informed as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest). Sec. 50 of the
Code is in conformity with Art. 22(1).
It may be noted that if the arrest is made by a Magistrate without a warrant
under Sec. 44, the case is covered neither by any of the Secs. 50, 55 and 75 nor
by any other provision in the Code requiring the Magistrate to communicate the
grounds of arrest to the arrestee. However, in practice, the Magistrate would still
be bound to state the grounds under Art. 22(1) of the Constitution. It may also
1 infra
2 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE
1 | Page

RIGHTS OF ARRESTED PERSON

be noted that it is the Magistrates duty to ask the accused whether he has been
informed of the grounds of arrest by the police officer [Sec. 167].
Sec. 50, being mandatory, confers a valuable right and non-compliance with it
amounts to disregard of the procedure established by law [Govind Prasad v
State.3 The timely information helps the arrested person in several ways, viz.
opportunity' to clarify any mistake/ misunderstanding in the mind of the
executing authority, to move the competent court for bail or in appropriate
circumstances for a writ of habeas corpus, to begin to prepare his defence. It is
not necessary to furnish full details of the offence, but sufficient particulars
must be furnished to enable the arrestee to know and understand as to why he
was arrested. The court can go into the sufficiency or otherwise of the grounds
so furnished. The detention becomes unlawful if the grounds given were not
proper and sufficient [In re Madhu Limaye4].
The arrestee must be told that he has committed a certain offence for which he
would be tried; he must be informed of the precise act done by him for which he
would be tried. Informing him merely of the law applicable to that act (viz. he
was arrested under Sec. 7 of a certain Act) would not be enough. In Vimal
Kumar Sharma v State5, held that an arrestee must be informed of the grounds
of his arrest with greatest dispatch as soon as possible, however, it may not be
immediately. The words, as used in Art 22(1), mean as early as is reasonable in
the circumstances of a particular case. However, the courts have insisted that
valid reasons must be given for the delay. The uncertainty of time limit for
being informed of the grounds has been made certain by the expression
forthwith used in Sec. 50( I). In England, under the Police and Criminal
Evidence Act, 1984, a person must be informed of the grounds of his arrest at
the time of his arrest or as soon as practicable thereafter.
Recent judgement
Ramnish & Anr. vs Cbi & Ors. on 29 March, 2016(para 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
3
4
5

1975 CrLJ 1249 (Cal)

AIR 1969 SC 1014
1995 CrLJ 2335 (All)

2 | Page

RIGHTS OF ARRESTED PERSON

the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12
hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be
displayed on a conspicuous notice board."
(b)
Production Before a Magistrate [Secs. 56-57]
The arrested person should be promptly produced before a Judge/Magistrate.
This right has been created to prevent the arrest from becoming means of
compelling the people to give information and to enable the judicial authority
independent of the police to determine the question of bail/ discharge.
Sec. 56 lays down that in case of an arrest without warrant, the police officer is
required, without unnecessary delay and subject to the provisions regarding bail,
to produce the arrested person before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the
case or before the officer-in-charge of a police station. It may be noted that Sec.
76 similarly provides for in the case of an arrest with warrant.
Sec. 57 lays down that no police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested
without warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances of the case
is reasonable, and such period shall not (in the absence of a special order of a
Magistrate under Sec. 167) exceed 24 hours exclusive of the time necessary for
the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrates court. The right has also
been incorporated in the Constitution as one of the fundamental rights [Art.
22(2)].
Thus, the arrested person must be produced before the Magistrate within 24
hours of his arrest. The period of 24 hours does not include the time necessary
for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrates court. This
precaution laid down in Sec. 57 ensures that the Magistrate shall have seisin of
what is going on and some knowledge of the nature of the charge against the
accused, however incomplete the information may be [Manoj v State of M.P].6
This right is not merely a formality but it is substantial protection accorded to an
arrestee so that if there is no case against him he may be released forthwith or
released on bail [In re Madhu Limaye case7]. It is necessary that the Magistrates
should try to enforce this requirement and where it is found disobeyed, come
down heavily upon the police [Khatri (II) v State of Bihar;8 D.G and l.G of
6

(1999) 3 SCC 715

7 ibid
8

1981 CrLJ 470 (SCJ)

3 | Page

RIGHTS OF ARRESTED PERSON

Police v Prem Sagar]9. The arrest commences with the restraint placed on the
liberty of the accused and not with the time of arrest recorded by the arresting
officer [Ashok Hussain].10
It was held in Saptawna v State of Assam,11 that where an accused is illegally
detained, the detention becomes lawful when subsequently he is arrested and
produced before a magistrate within 24 hours. The production of the accused
before the Magistrate after 24 hours of his arrest did not necessarily render the
custody illegal [Manoj Kumar v State],12 when there was reasonable explanation
for the delay [Kultej Singh].13
(c) Consultation with Lawyer! Legal Aid
The Constitution as well as the Code recognizes the right of every arrested
person to consult a legal practitioner of his choice [Art. 22(1) of the
Constitution; Sec. 303 of the Code]. The right begins from the moment of arrest
[Moti Bai v State14] i.e. pre-trial stage. The arrestee could also have consultation
with his friends or relatives [Francis Coralie v U.T. of Delhi15], The consultation
with the lawyer may be in the presence of police officer but not within his
hearing [Joginder Kumar v State of U.P].16
The right to counsel would remain empty if the accused due to his poverty or
indigent conditions has no means to engage a counsel for his defence. The State
is under a constitutional mandate (implicit in Art. 21, explicit in Art. 39A - a
Directive Principle) to provide free legal aid to an indigent accused person. A
9

(1991) 5 SCC 700

10

1990 CrLJ 2201 (Bom)

11

(AIR 1971 SC 813)

12

1995 CrLJ 646 (All)

13

1992 CrLJ 1173 (Karnt)

14

AIR 1954 Raj 241

15 ibid
16

(1994) 4 SCC 620

4 | Page

RIGHTS OF ARRESTED PERSON

failure to inform the accused of this right and non-compliance with this
requirement would vitiate the trial [Sukh Das v U.T. of Arunachal Pradesh].17
Sec. 304 of the Code also provides such a right to the accused.
(d)Examination by Medical Practitioner [Sec. 54]
Sec. 54 gives the arrestee the right to have himself medically examined to
enable him to defend and protect himself properly. Under it, the arrested person
has a right to have his body examined by a registered medical practitioner when
he is produced before a Magistrate or at any time when he is under custody,
with a view to enabling him to establish that the offence with which he is
charged was not committed by him or that any other person committed any
offence against his body. The Magistrate may reject the request of the arrested
person if he considers that the request is made for the purpose of vexation or
delay or for defeating the ends of justice.
Even in cases where accused does not make any prayer it is the duty of the
megistrate to inform the arrested person about his right to get himself medically
examined in case he has complaints of physical torture or maltreatment in police
custody [Sheela barse v State of Maharasthra,].18 The non-compliance of this
important provision by the Magistrates has prompted the higher courts to issue
such directions. In fact, it is the ignorance of this right which makes an arrestee
unable to exercise it [Mukesh Kumar v State (Delhi),].19 In this case, also held
that the procedure adopted by the Magistrate in examining the body of the
accused person himself and then dismissing the application on his observation
that they were seen in normal posture was wholly unwarranted and erroneous.
Section 54 of the Code has been amended by the 2005 Amendment, viz. Sec. 54
shall be renumbered as sub-section (1) thereof, and after sub-section (I) as so
renumbered, the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely: - (2) Where
an examination is made under sub-section (1), a copy of the report of such
examination shall be furnished by the registered medical practitioner to the
arrested person or the person nominated by such arrested person.
The position has been further changed by the 2008 Amendment to the Act:
Substitution of new Section for Sec. 54 (Examination of the arrested person by
medical officer)
17

1986 CrLJ 1084 (SC)

18

1983 CrLJ 642 (SC)

19

1990 CrLJ 1923 (Del)

5 | Page

RIGHTS OF ARRESTED PERSON

For Sec. 54, the following section shall be substituted, namely
54. Examination of arrested person by medical officer
(1) When any person is arrested, he shall be examined by the medical officer in
the service of Central or State Governments and in case the medical officer is
not available by a registered medical practitioner soon after the arrest is made:
Provided that where the arrested person is a female, the examination of the body
shall be made only by or under the supervision of a female medical officer, in
case the female medical officer is not available, by a female registered medical
practitioner.
(2) The medical officer or a registered medical practitioner so examining the
arrested person shall prepare the record of such examination, mentioning therein
any injuries or marks of violence upon the person arrested, and the approximate
time when such injuries or marks may have been inflicted.
(3) Where an examination is made under sub-sec. (1). a copy of the report of
such examination shall be furnished by the medical officer or registered medical
practitioner, as the case may be, to the arrested person or the person nominated
by such arrested person.
(e)
Special Protection to Females
It has been held that females are not to be arrested without presence of a lady
constable and further no female be arrested after sun-set and separate lock-ups
be provided for them [Sheela barse case20). The salutary principle that the
medical examination of a female should be made by a female medical
practitioner has been embodied in Sec. 53(2). Similar provision has not been
expressly made in Sec. 54. However, it is unlikely that the Magistrate will not
follow the principle.
Departing from a long tradition of not arresting women at night and not
arresting women in the absence of a female constable, the Supreme Court in
State of Maharashtra v Christian Community Welfare Council of India21 held:

20 ibid
21

(2003) 8 SCC 546

6 | Page

RIGHTS OF ARRESTED PERSON

Herein we notice that the mandate issued by the High Court prevents the police
from arresting a lady without the presence of a lady constable. The said
direction also prohibits the arrest of a lady after sunset and before sunrise under
any circumstances. While we do agree with the object behind the direction
issued by the High Court, we think a strict compliance with the said direction, in
a given circumstance, would cause practical difficulties to the investigating
agency and might even give room tor evading the process of law by
unscrupulous accused. While it is necessary to protect the female sought to be
arrested by the police from police misdeeds, it may not be always possible and
practical to have the presence of a lady constable when the necessity for such
arrest arises, therefore, we think this direction issued requires some
modification without disturbing the object behind the same. We think the object
will be served if a direction is issued to the arresting authority that while
arresting a female person, all efforts should be made to keep a lady constable
present but in the circumstances where the arresting officers are reasonably
satisfied that such presence of a lady constable is not available or possible andor
the delay in arresting caused by securing the presence of a lady constable would
impede the course of investigation, such arresting officer for reasons to be
recorded either before the arrest or immediately after the arrest be permitted to
arrest a female person for lawful reasons at any time of the day or night
depending on the circumstances of the case even without the presence of a lady
constable.
(f)
Guidelines/Preventive Measures in All Cases of
Arrest/Detention
In Joginder Kumar v State ofU.P.22 die apex court ruled that an arrested person
being held in custody is entitled, if he so requests, to have one friend, relative or
other person interested in his welfare, told that he has been arrested and where
he is being detained. The police officer shall inform the arrested person when he
is brought to the police station of this right. An entry shall be required to be
made in the diary as to who was informed of the arrest. The Magistrate is
obliged to satisfy himself that there requirements have been complied with.
It emerges from the above decision that arrest is not a must in a cognizable
offence. However, the Allahabad High Court (a Full Bench of 5 judges) has held
that on disclosure of a cognizable offence, the arrest of the offender is a must [
Vinod Narain (Dr) v State of UP.].23

22

(1994) 4 SCC 260

23

1996 CrLJ 1309 (All)

7 | Page

RIGHTS OF ARRESTED PERSON

The frequent instances of police atrocities and custodial deaths have prompted
the supreme court to issue the following directions in D. K. Basu v state of West
Bengal,24 to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions
are made, 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, the directions are:
(i)The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation
should bear an accurate and clear identification and name tags with their
designations.
(ii) The police officer carrying out the arrest shall prepare a "memo of arrest' at
the time of arrest and such memo must be attested by at least one witness (a
member of arrestee's family or a respectable person of the locality from where
arrest is made). It shall also be countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain
the time and date of arrest.
(iii) A person who has been arrested/ detained shall be entitled to have one
friend/relative/other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being
informed as early as possible.
(iv) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be
notified by the police where the next friend relative of arrestee lives outside the
district/town through the Legal Aid Organization in the District and the police
station of area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8-12 hours after the
arrest.
(v) The arrestee must be aware of his right to have someone informed of his
arrest/detention as soon as he is put under arrest detained.
(vi) 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
arrestee who has been informed of the arrest and the name and particulars of the
police officials in whose custody the arrestee is.
(vii) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of
his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any present on his. her body, must be
recorded at that time. The "Inspection Memo" must be signed by the arrestee
and the police officer and its copy provided to arrestee.
24

[(1997) 6 SCC 642]

8 | Page

RIGHTS OF ARRESTED PERSON

(viii) 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 State/U.T.
The Director should prepare such a panel for all tehsils and districts as well.
(ix) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest should be sent to
the Area Magistrate for his record.
(x)The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation,
though not throughout the interrogation.
Recent amendment made to the Code codifies some of the Supreme Court
guidelines regarding arrest of a person laid down in D.K. Basu's case25. A new
Sec. 50-A has been inserted by the 2005 Amendment, which is as follows:
50-A. Obligation of person making arrest to inform about the arrest, etc., to a
nominated person.
(1) Every police officer or other person making any arrest under this Code shall
forthwith give the information regarding such arrest and place where the
arrested person is being held to any of his friends, relatives or such other
persons as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person for the purpose
of giving such information.
(2) The police officer shall inform the arrested person of his rights under subsection (1) as soon as he is brought to the police station.
(3) An entry of the fact as to who has been informed of the arrest of such
person shall be made in a book to be kept in the police station in such
form as may be prescribed in this behalf by the State Government.
(4) It shall be the duty of the Magistrate before whom such arrested person is
produced, to satisfy himself that the requirements of sub-section (2) and
subsection (3) have been complied with in respect of such arrested
person.
Likewise, a new section 60-A has been inserted by the 2008 Amendment, which
is as follows:
60-A. Arrest to be made strictly according to the Code - No arrest shall be
made except in accordance with the provisions of this Code or any other law for
the time being in force providing for arrest.
(g)

Safeguards Against Custodial Torture

Torture is the systematic and deliberate infliction of acute pain in any form by
one person on another, or on a third person, in order to accomplish the purpose,
25 ibid
9 | Page

RIGHTS OF ARRESTED PERSON

the former against the will of the latter [International Legal Experts]. In D.K.
Basu case (above), the apex court observed: custodial violence (torture, rape,
death in police custody/lock-up) is a matter of deep concern. It infringes Art. 21
of the Constitution as well as basic human rights and strikes a blow at rule of
law. It may be noted that there are no specific provisions in the Code against
custodial torture.
In Sunil Batra v Delhi Admn.26, the apex court observed that tile most important
right of an imprisoned person is the integrity of his physical person and mental
personality. The court hurled against the bar fetters and solitary
confinement (unless it is absolutely necessary to do so). In Prem Shankar v
Delhi Admn.,27 it condemned the handcuffs in chaining the prisoners. Even
where, in extreme circumstances (viz. the accused is dangerous or desperate),
handcuffs become necessary the escorting officer must record the reasons for
doing so. In Sheela Barse v State of Maharashtra,28 the apex court took note of
the custodial violence to women lodged in police lock-up. It directed that there
should be lock-ups in good localities exclusively for female suspects. Further,
the interrogation of the female suspects should be carricd only in the presence
of female police officers.
In D.K. Basu case (above), the apex court noted that the right to interrogate the
detenus, culprits or arrestees in the interest of the nation must take precedence
over an individual's right to personal liberty [Salus populi/ republicae suprema
lax safety of the people/ State is the supreme law]. The State's action,
however, must be Tight, just and fair. Interrogation though essential must be
on scientific principles and third-degree methods are totally impermissible. To
check the abuse of police power, transparency of public action and
accountability are two possible safeguards. The police force needs to be infused
with basic human values and made sensitive to the constitutional ethos. With a
view to bring in transparency, the presence of counsel of the arrestee at some
point of time during interrogation may deter the police from using third-degree
methods.
Recently, a new section, Sec. 55-A, has been inserted by the 2008 Amendment
to take care of custodial torture to some extent:
26

(AIR 1980 SC 1579)

27

(AIR 1980 SC 1535)

28

(AIR 1983 SC 378)

10 | P a g e

RIGHTS OF ARRESTED PERSON

55-A. Health and safety of arrested person - It shall be the duty of the person
having the custody of an accused to take reasonable care of the health and safety
of the accused. Thus, it is obligatory on the part of the person having the
custody of the accused to take reasonable care of the health and safety of the
accused.
(h)Compensation for Unlawful Arrest
Compensation is a tangible expression of the State's sympathy and concern
towards the victims of the abuse of power. Under Sec. 357(3) of the Code, the
criminal courts can award unlimited amount of compensation to the victims at
the time of passing judgment of conviction. This provision is not ancillary to
other provisions of the Code but in addition thereto. Further, this provision
cannot be invoked for awarding compensation to the victim, where the accused
persons are acquitted of the charge on benefit of doubt or on any technicalities
of law. It is only when the accused is convicted, that the victim can get
compensation.
There is no other express provision in the Code or the Constitution for grant of
compensation for violation of a fundamental right to life or personal liberty. The
Supreme Court has. however, judicially evolved a right to compensation in
such cases. While the remedy of compensation flows from the significant
content of Art. 21 of the Constitution, the power to award compensation flows
from Art. 32/ 226 [Rudal Shah's case; Bhim Singh v Suite ofJ&K (1985) 4 SCC
677; Nilabctti B a her a v State of Orissa (1993) 3 SCC 746].
In D. K Basu (above), the Supreme Court observed: The award of
compensation is a remedy available in public law since the purpose of public
law is not only to civilize public power but also to assure the citizens that they
live under a legal system wherein their rights and interests shall be protected
and preserved. In PUCL v Union of India (AIR 1997 SC 1203), the apex court
awarded a sum of Rs. one lakh to the families of each of the deceased killed in a
fake encounter by the police. In Thirath Ram Saini v State of Punjab (1997)
11 SCC 623. the court awarded each a sum of Rs. 10,000 by way of
compensation for wrongful confinement of two persons by the police.
Compensation has also been awarded when a person under arrest for alleged
theft was tortured whilst in custody [T:C. Pathak v State ofU.P.].29
Consequences of Non-compliance with the Provisions Relating to Arrest

29

(1995) 6 SCC 357

11 | P a g e

RIGHTS OF ARRESTED PERSON

A trial will not be void simply because the arrest provisions have not been fully
complied with. If the court has jurisdiction to try an offence, any illegality or
irregularity in arrest w ill not oust the courts jurisdiction to try the offence
[Prabhu v Emperor30; Mubarik Ali Ahmed].31 The same will not affect the
question whether the accused person was guilty or not guilty of the offence with
which he is charged [Subramania Chetty, Re AIR 1941 Mad 181]. However,
illegality or irregularity in arrest would be quite material if such person is
prosecuted on a charge of resistance to or escape from lawful custody (Secs.
224, 225, 225-B IPC) [Jagannath v Emperor AIR 1932 All 227].
The right of private defence extends to every person against a private person
attempting to make an illegal arrest (Secs. 96-106, IPC). However, if the person
making an illegal arrest is a police officer/ public servant, then this right against
such officer/ servant will not be as wide as it is against a private person and
would be subject to the restrictions contained in Sec. 99, IPC.
If a public servant having authority to make arrests knowingly exercises that
authority in contravention of law and effects an illegal arrest, he can be
prosecuted undei Sec. 220, IPC. Further, any person who illegally arrests
another is punishable under Sec 342, IPC. for wrongful confinement. An illegal
arrest is a sort of false imprisonment and the person making such arrest exposes
himself to a suit for damages in a civil court [Anwar Hussain v A joy Kumar
Mukherjee AIR 1965 SC 1651]. The provisions regarding arrest cannot be bypassed by alleging that there was no arrest but only informal detention by the
police [Queen-Empress v Gobardhan, ILR 9 All 528].

30

AIR 1944 PC 73

31

AIR 1957 SC 857

12 | P a g e