Nirma University

NIRMA UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF LAW
CASE ANALYSIS
PETITIONER:
JOGINDER KUMAR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF U.P.
AIR 1994 SC 1349
SUBMITTED BY:
WALI KHAN
09BAL142
1
FACTS
 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 No. 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 Sri Mangeram Choud-hary,
Nahar Singh Yadav, Harinder Singh Tewatia, Amar Singh and Ors.
before the respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 kept the petitioner
in his custody.
 When the brother of the petitioner made enquiries about the
petitioner, he was told that the petitioner will be set free in the
evening after making some enquiries in connection with a case.
 On 7.1.1994 at about 12.55 p.m., the brother of the petitioner being
apprehensive of the intentions of respondent No. 4, sent a telegram
to the Chief Minister of U.P. apprehending his brother's
implication in some criminal case and also further apprehending
the petitioner being shot dead in fake encounter.
 In spite of the frequent enquiries, the whereabouts of the petitioner
could not be located. On the evening of 7.1.1994, it came to be
2
known that petitioner is detained in illegal custody of 5th
respondent, SHO P.S. Mussorie.
 On 8.1.1994, it was informed that the 5th respondent was keeping

the petitioner in detention to make further enquiries in some case.
So far as petitioner has not been produced before the concerned
Magistrate.
 Instead the 5th respondent directed the relative of the petitioner to
approach the 4th respondent S.S.P. Ghaziabad for release of the
petitioner.
 On 9.1.1994, in the evening when the brother of petitioner along
with relatives went to P.S. Mussorie to enquire about the well-
being of his brother, it was found that the petitioner had been taken
to some undisclosed destination. Under these circumstances, the
present petition has been preferred for the release of Joginder
Kumar, the petitioner herein.
3
ISSUES ENVOLVED
 Unlawful detention under Articles 21 and 22 (1) of

Constitution of India.
 Law of arrest is one of balancing private rights of individual
and that of social interest in curbing crime no arrest can be
made only because it is lawful for police officer to do so
police officer has to justify arrest apart from his power to do
so.
 Articles 21 and 22 (1) mandates some rights to arrested
persons and has to be complied with it is duty of magistrate
before whom arrested person is produced to satisfy himself
whether requirements are complied with or not duty
envisaged under Articles 21 and 22 (1) are in addition to
rights found in several police manuals.
4
JUDGEMENT
The court decided in this case :Words of Justice MN

VENKATACHALLIAH “No arrest can be made because it is lawful for
the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one
thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police
officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so.
Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable
harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be
made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an
offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a police officer in
the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and
perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a
reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the
genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both
as to the person’s complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest.
Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. The
recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the
constitutional concomitants of the fundamental right to personal liberty
and freedom. A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of
complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in
the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary
and justified. Except in heinous offences, an arrest must be avoided if a
5
police officer issues notice to person to attend the Station House and not
to leave the Station without permission would do”.
An arrest during the investigation of a cognizable case may be

considered justified in one or other of the following circumstances: (i)
The case involves a grave offence like murder, dacoity, robbery, rape
etc., and it is necessary to arrest the accused and bring his movements
under restraint to infuse confidence among the terror stricken victims.
(ii) The accused is likely to abscond and evade the processes of law. (iii)
The accused is given to violent behaviour and is likely to commit further
offences unless his movements are brought under restraint. (iv) The
accused is a habitual offender and unless kept
in custody he is likely to commit similar offences again. It would be
desirable to insist through departmental instructions that a police officer
making an arrest should also record in the case diary the reasons for
making the arrest, thereby clarifying his conformity to the specified
guidelines.
In India, Third Report of the National Police Commission at page 32

also suggested:
...An rest during the investigation of a cognizable case may be

considered justified in one or other of the following circumstances :
6
(i) The case involves a grave offence like murder, dacoity, robbery, rape
etc., and it is necessary to arrest the accused and bring his movements
under restraint to infuse confidence among the terror stricken victims.
(ii) The accused is likely to abscond and evade the processes of law.
(iii) The accused is given to violent behaviour and is likely to commit

further offences unless his movements are brought under restraint.
(iv) the accused is a habitual offender and unless kept in custody he is

likely to commit similar offences again.
It would be desirable to insist through departmental instructions that a

police officer making an arrest should also record in the case diary the
reasons for making the arrest, thereby clarifying his conformity to the
specified guidelines....
25. The above guidelines are merely the incidents of personal liberty
guaranteed under the Constitution of India. No arrest can be made
because it is lawful for the Police Officer to do so. The existence of the
power to arrest is one thing. The justification of the exercise of it is quite
another. The Police Officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from
his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person
can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a
person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation
of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent
7
for a Police Officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional
rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest be made
without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to
the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief
both as to the person's complicity and even so as to the need to effect
arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. The
recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the
constitutional concomitants of the fundamental right to personal liberty
and freedom. A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of
complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in
the opinion of the Officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is
necessary and justified. Except in heinous offences, an arrest must be
avoided if a police Officer issues notice to person to attend to Station
House and not to leave Station without permission would do.Then, there
is the right to have someone informed. That right of the arrested person,
upon request, to have someone informed and to consult privately with a
lawyer was recognised by Section 56(1) of the Police and Criminal
Evidence Act, 1984 in England (Civil Actions Against the Police-
Richard Clayton and Hugh Tomlinson; page 313). That Section
provides: where a person has been arrested and is being held in custody
in a police station or other premises, he shall be entitled, if he so
requests, to have one friend or relative or other person who is known to
him or who is likely to take an interest in his welfare told, as soon as is
8
practicable except to the extent that delay is permitted by this section,
that he has been arrested and is being detained there.
These rights are inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution

and require to be recognised and scrupulously protected. For effective
enforcement of these fundamental rights, we issue the following
requirements :
(1) An arrested person being held in custody is entitled, if he so requests

to have one friend relative or other person who is known to him or likely
to take an interest in his welfare told as far as is practicable that he has
been arrested and where is being detained.
(2) The Police Officer shall inform the arrested person when he is
brought to the police station of this right.
(3) An entry shall be required to be made in the Diary as to who was

informed of the arrest. These protections from power must be held to
flow from Articles 21 and 22(1) and enforced strictly.
It shall be the duty of the Magistrate, before whom the arrested person
is produced, to satisfy himself that these requirements have been
complied with.
The above requirements shall be followed in all cases of arrest till legal
provisions are made in this behalf. These requirements shall be in
9
addition to the rights of the arrested persons found in the various Police
Manuals.
These requirements are not exhaustive. The Directors General of Police

of all the States in India shall issue necessary instructions requiring clue
observance of these requirements. In additions, departmental instruction
shall also be issued that a police officer making an arrest should also
record in the case diary, the reasons for making the arrest.
10

Nirma University

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nirma University

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nirma University

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NIRMA UNIVERSITY

AIR 1994 SC 1349

 This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The

 On 8.1.1994, it was informed that the 5th respondent was keeping

 Unlawful detention under Articles 21 and 22 (1) of

The court decided in this case :Words of Justice MN

An arrest during the investigation of a cognizable case may be

In India, Third Report of the National Police Commission at page 32

...An rest during the investigation of a cognizable case may be

(iii) The accused is given to violent behaviour and is likely to commit

(iv) the accused is a habitual offender and unless kept in custody he is

It would be desirable to insist through departmental instructions that a

These rights are inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution

(1) An arrested person being held in custody is entitled, if he so requests

(3) An entry shall be required to be made in the Diary as to who was

These requirements are not exhaustive. The Directors General of Police

You might also like