This article delves into the problem of police atrocities which can take place through various ways like- unauthorized detention, torture, harassment, police inaction, fabrication of evidences etc. Various powers are provided to police officers to facilitate their functioning but they are misused to the large extent. Different atrocities inflicted by police officers on common masses are the direct violation of fundamental and human rights of the citizens. The author begins the article with the powers of police officers and their duties towards citizens. The author primarily focused on the atrocities against arrested persons and their rights under Indian statutes. The fundamental rights of the citizens which are violated by such acts of police are discussed as well. The author also provides the importance of judicial rulings in curbing the police atrocities where the courts tried to interpret the sections in consonance to the principle of free and fair trail, natural justice. The supreme court in various judgements have been limiting and circumscribing the powers of police officers and balancing the both social interest and individual interest. This article finally analyzes the remedies which a person has against the police atrocities. The author also incorporated some suggestions in this article to deal with such problem.
Also Read – Adani Vs Hinderburg
INTRODUCTION
The code of civil procedure presupposes the existence of the police and police officers. They are directed by CrPC with certain powers and need to discharge certain duties.
The police force is an instrument for prevention and detection of crime.
The CrPC confers specific powers for example- power to make arrest, search etc., on the members of the police force who are enrolled as police officer. Wider powers have been given to police officers who are in charge of police stations. Such station-house officers are also required to discharge onerous duties in relation to detection, investigation and prevention of offences.
Police officers superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station may exercise the same power but over the larger local limits. Police officer have different powers including Power to investigate cognizable and non-cognizable offence, power to arrest, Power of preventive arrest, power to require attendance of witnesses etc.
There have been many instances when these powers have been misused by the Police as well.
Various powers provided to police officers for facilitating the making the arrests are subject to certain restraints for protection of the interests of the person to be arrested and also of the society at large. These restraints can be considered as the recognition of the rights of the arrested person.
CrPC mentions some provisions to protect the interest of arrested person. Arrested person has right to know the grounds of arrest.
He also has right to information regarding the right to be released on bail. The arrested person has certain other rights including right to be taken before a magistrate without delay, free legal aid, right to be examined by a medical practitioner.
POWERS OF POLICE OFFICER
Police Officers is granted wide range of powers under CrPC. There are several powers conferred on the police officers and few of them are-
- POWER TO ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT-
Arrest means apprehension of a person by a legal authority resulting in deprivation of his liberty. The code contemplates two types of arrest-
- Arrest made in pursuance of a warrant issued by a magistrate.
- Arrest made without such warrant.
- When police may arrest without warrant- (1) Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person
- 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
- 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.
- Section 60 empowers the person having the lawful custody to pursue and retake the arrested person if he escapes or is rescued from his custody.
- ARREST TO PREVENT THE COMMISSION OF COGNIZABLE OFFENCES.
A police officer knowing of a design to commit any cognizable offence may arrest, without orders from a Magistrate and without a warrant, the person so designing, if it appears to such officer that the commission of the offence cannot be otherwise prevented.
ANALYSIS OF THESE SECTIONS-
The satisfaction of the police officer contemplated by the expression “if it appears to such officer” under section 152 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.
- 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.
- 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 money and other valuable property or at the instance of an enemy of the person arrested.
- 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.
ABUSE OF POLICE POWER–
“Torture” of a human being by another human being is essentially an instrument to impose the will of the “strong” over the “weak” by suffering. The word torture today has become synonymous with the darker side of human civilization. In all custodial crimes what is of real concern is not only infliction of body pain but the mental agony which a person undergoes within the four walls of police station or lock-up. Whether it is physical assault or rape in police custody, the extent of trauma a person experiences is beyond the purview of law. “Custodial torture” is a naked violation of human dignity and degradation which destroys, to a very large extent, the individual personality. It is a calculated assault on human dignity and whenever human dignity is wounded, civilization takes a step backward.
Police is, no doubt, under a legal duty and has legitimate right to arrest a criminal and to interrogate him during the investigation of an offence but the law does not permit use of third-degree methods or torture of accused in custody during interrogation and investigation with a view to solve the crime. End cannot justify the means. The interrogation and investigation into a crime should be in true sense purposeful to make the investigation effective. By torturing a person and using third-degree methods, the police would be accomplishing behind the closed doors what the demands of our legal order forbid. No society can permit it.
Custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilized society governed by the rule of law.
Custodial violence can be classified into physical, psychological and sexual torture.
- Physical torture -Methods of physical torture includes punching, slapping, beating, forced body positions, stretching limbs, suspension, constraint of movement, burning with cigarettes and caustic substance, cutting with sharp instruments, electric shocks, mutilating body parts, chemical exposures in wounds, dental torture and starvation.
- Psychological torture A person is put through mental torture by threatening to harm or kill the victim or his relatives or friends, forcing him to hear or witness others being tortured, forcing him to harm others, violation of religious beliefs and humiliation.
- Sexual torture- Custodial rape is another kind of torture faced by victims. Custodial rape can be defined as rape perpetrated in state owned institutions like prisons or jails by person in charge of such institution. Other forms of sexual torture include sexual harassment, forced impregnation and virginity testing.
- Studies show that the number of preventive arrests and arrests for petty offences were substantially large, the percentage of under trial prisoners was unusually high and most of them were there because they were not able to post bail or furnish sureties.
- According to National Campaign against Torture report, The National Human Rights Commission of India recorded 1681 cases of custodial deaths in the year 2020. Out of these, 1569 deaths took place in judicial custody and 110 deaths took place in police custody.
- Recent case of police atrocity was witnesses in Odisha where a journalist was arrested and chained to hospital bed for hours after he was hospitalized following his arrest in an assault case.
Also Read – Abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India: Implications on Jammu and Kashmir
REMEDIES AGAINST POLICE ATROCITIES
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
ARTICLE 22 – 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.
Article 21 casts an obligation upon the State to preserve the life of every person, whether innocent or guilty. The State’s behavior must be “right, just, and fair.” Torture, in any form, for the purpose of collecting any type of information would be neither “just nor just nor fair,” and hence would be illegal and in violation of Article 21. Such a criminal suspect must be examined, subjected to persistent and scientific interrogation, and determined in line with the law. He cannot, however, be tortured, exposed to third-degree techniques, or killed in order to obtain information, extract confessions, or learn about his collaborators, weapons, and so on. His fundamental right cannot be restricted in the manner authorized by law, notwithstanding the fact that, by definition, the mode of questioning of such a person would be qualitatively different.
Following are the rights of prisoners which are implicitly provided under the Article 21 of the Constitution of India:
● Rights of inmates of protective homes.
● Right to free legal aid.
● Right against cruel and unusual punishment.
● Right to fair trial.
● Right against custodial violence and death in police lock-ups or encounters.
● Right to live with human dignity.
● Right to meet friends and consult lawyer.
● Rights against solitary confinement, handcuffing & bar fetters and protection from torture.
● Right to compensation for wrongful arrest, detention and torture.
It is significant to note that an under trial or convicted prisoner cannot be subjected to a physical or mental restraint- a) which is not warranted by the punishment awarded by the court, or b) which is in excess of the requirements of prisoner’s discipline, or c) which constitutes human degradation. The rights guaranteed by Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution must be guarded zealously and rigorously. Article 21’s term “life or personal liberty” encompasses the right to live with human dignity, and so includes a protection against torture and assault by the State or its agents.
The priceless right granted by Article 21 cannot be denied to convicts, undertrials, detainees, or other persons in custody unless done so in accordance with the method established by law and subject to such reasonable limits as are permissible by law.
It cannot be stated that when a police officer arrests a person, he gives up his fundamental right to life. It cannot also be claimed that a citizen’s right to life is unaffected. Nor can it be said that the right to life of a citizen can be put in abeyance on his arrest. Any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment would fall within the inhibition of Article 21, whether it occurs during investigation, interrogation or otherwise.
CORRESPONDING DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING OFFICER / RIGHTS OF ARRESTED PERSON UNDER CrPC-
- The words reasonable complaint, reasonably suspected, against whom “credible information” is received, shows that adequate and reasonable information should be there before a person is arrested without warrant.
- 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.
- No person arrested under sub- section (1) shall be detained in custody for a period exceeding twenty- four hours from the time of his arrest unless his further detention is required or authorized under any other provisions of this Code or of any other law for the time being in force.
- 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 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 magistrate’s court.
- Section 58 casts an obligation upon the 3 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.
- It is ensured that no woman is arrested after sunset and before sunrise, other than in exceptional circumstances and a woman police officer is associated while effecting arrest of a woman.
- A woman or any male person, below 15 years of age associated with a case cannot be summoned to police station. The questioning of any such person may be done by the police officer only at the place of residence of such woman/minor.
Strict compliance with section 172, CrPC called for.
– Sub-section (1) of section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires that (1) “every police officer making an investigation under this chapter shall day-by-day enter his proceedings in the investigation in a diary setting forth the time at which the information reached him, the time at which he began and closed his investigation, the place or places visited by him and a statement of the circumstances ascertained through his investigation”.
JUDICIAL RULINGS
Throughout, the effort has been made to keep it from being abused while yet allowing it to carry out the tasks given to the Police. The supreme court in various judgements have been limiting and circumscribing the powers of police officers and balancing the both social interest and individual interest. The Supreme Court and the High Courts have, on several occasions, explained the true content and spirit of the said provisions and have laid down the guidelines governing and regulating the exercise of the said power.
- Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab
Deceased, a human rights activist was investigating and exposing illegal activities of police who killed innocent people in fake encounters and cremated their unidentified bodies unceremoniously, during the Disturbed Period in Punjab – Police authorities trying to threaten and make him desist from doing so. When he remained unyielding, they hatched a criminal conspiracy, pursuant whereto he was abducted, brought to police station, tortured, murdered, and his dead body thrown in a canal.
The action of the police by siding with one of the parties and, in the process, harassing the petitioners by its coercive behavior strongly deprecated. The police brutalities which occur in various forms are strongly denounced.
COURT HELD THAT- Police needs to be sensitised about the rights of citizens and the civilised manner in which police is required to maintain law and order. Police atrocities are always violative of constitutional mandate, particularly, Articles 21 and 22. Such provisions ensure that arbitrary arrest and detention are not made. Tolerance of police atrocities, as in the instant case, would amount to acceptance of systematic subversion and erosion of the rule of law.
- Beenu Rawat v. Union of India
In this case court went for construing harmoniously the rights of a citizen and powers of police officer.
In Part III of the Constitution of India Article 21 enjoys special status. Right to life and right to liberty are of historical importance. Rise of modern democratic State is attributable to a long-drawn battle waged by ordinary people against the sovereign power. The State or its functionaries cannot deprive any person of his life which includes the right to live with human dignity except in accordance with law.
The maximum threat to such fundamental right is perceptible when any kind of protest or agitation is directed against the police force for reasons which are self-evident. Police is licensed to carry arms for protecting the people. This itself creates a situation where the power of arms may be misused under the mistaken belief in the absolutism of the police power or on account of lack of sensitivity to the democratic rights of the people to register peaceful protest, against wrongs, especially that of public functionaries. The submissions on behalf of the respondents that nobody can be permitted to paralyse the functioning of police or other State institutions in a name of public protest cannot be rejected off hand because it is only a corollary of the right to protest peacefully; proverbially the other side of the coin which corroborates the well-accepted principle that rights without duties tend to degenerate into licence for misuse of rights.
- Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand
In this case court differentiated between the officials and unofficial acts of police officer and held that Police officers cannot be protected for unofficial act.
Court held that there may be unassailable and unimpeachable circumstances on record which may establish at the outset that the police officer or public servant was acting in performance of his official duty and is entitled to protection given under Section 197 CrPC. It is not possible to hold that in such a case, the court cannot look into any documents produced by the accused or the public servant.
On an independent examination of relevant documents, like FIRS, post-mortem notes, inquest report, seizure memo and extracts of FSL report, the court can come to a conclusion.
It is not the duty of the police officers to kill the accused merely because he is a dreaded criminal. Undoubtedly, the police have to arrest the accused and put them up for trial. The Supreme Court has repeatedly admonished trigger-happy police personnel, who liquidate criminals and project the incident as an encounter. Such killings must be deprecated. They are not recognised as legal by our criminal justice administration system. Court went to the extent that such encounters amount to State sponsored terrorism.
Court also recognized the right of police officer to be protected against attack while carrying official act.
Court held that one cannot be oblivious of the fact that there are cases where the police, who are performing their duty, are attacked and killed. There is a rise in such incidents and judicial notice must be taken of this fact.
In such circumstances, while the police have to do their legal duty of arresting the criminals, they have also to protect themselves. The requirement of sanction to prosecute affords protection to the policemen, who are sometimes required to take drastic action against criminals to protect life and property of the people and to protect themselves against attack. Unless unimpeachable evidence is on record to establish that their action is indefensible, mala fide and vindictive, they cannot be subjected to prosecution. Sanction must be a precondition to their prosecution. It affords necessary protection to such police personnel.
The “balancing of interests” approach is basically derived from Roscoe Pound’s theories of social engineering, Pound insisted that his structure of public, social and individual interests are all, in fact, individual interests looked at from different points of view for the purpose of clarity. Therefore, in order to make the system work properly, it is essential that when interests are balanced, all claims must be translated into the same level and carefully labelled.
- GVK Industries Ltd. v. ITO
Court pointed out the duty on state to protect human rights and dignity of all citizens and limiting the power of organs of state to the limit specified by constitution of India.
The primary task of the State is to provide security to all citizens without violating human dignity. Powers conferred upon the statutory authorities have to be, perforce, admitted. Nonetheless, the very essence of constitutionalism is also that no organ of the State may arrogate to itself powers beyond what is specified in the Constitution.
- Ramlila Maidan Incident, In re
Remedial and compensatory measures were directed (per curiam). Disciplinary action was directed to be taken against police officials who used undue force or failed to render assistance to injured persons. Criminal cases were directed to be registered both against police officials and members of public who resorted to violence Compensation of Rs 5 lakhs awarded to legal heirs of lady who died as a result of this incident and Compensation of Rs 50,000 awarded each of persons who were hospitalized due to serious injuries.
- D.K. Basu v. State of W. B
Court considered it appropriate to issue the following requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf, as preventive measures:
- 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.
- 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 at least one witness, who may either be 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 countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest.
- A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a station or interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or reor other person known to him or having interest in his welfare Dem one friend or relative , as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and 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.
- 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 lives 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee.
- The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed
- Copies of all the documents including the memo sent to the Illaqa Magistrate for his record.
- The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.
- 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 a conspicuous notice board.
Failure to comply with the requirements hereinabove mentioned shall apart from rendering the official concerned liable for departmental action, also render him liable to be punished for contempt of court and the proceedings for contempt of court may be instituted in any High Court of the country, having territorial jurisdiction over the matter.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
It can be seen that the ability to stop, search, arrest, and interrogate is utilized against a person who may eventually turn out to be an innocent, law-abiding citizen. Arrest has a negative and humiliating effect on his personality. He feels outraged, alienated, and antagonistic. However, a balance must be established between the security of the state (and the public interest in peace, law, and order) on the one hand, and individual freedom on the other.
Over the last more than two decades, the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have worked to limit the immense discretionary authority conferred in police by law by imposing a number of protections and to regulate it by establishing a number of standards and subjecting the power to a number of conditions. The courts are becoming more sensitive towards the people under the custody of police. Courts even directed police officers to not use handcuffs or fetters on arrested person unless you have recorded reasons and obtained orders of the Court for such use.
It is true that if too much emphasis is placed on protecting hardened criminals’ basic rights and human rights, such offenders may go free without disclosing any aspect or iota of criminality, resulting in the crime being unpunished and, in the end, the society suffering. The concern is legitimate, as is the problem. To accomplish the purposes of justice in such a circumstance, a balanced strategy is required. This is especially true given society’s expectation that police must deal with offenders in an efficient and effective way, as well as bring those who are engaged in the crime to justice. The remedy, however, could be worse than the illness.
SUGGESTION
- From time to time, various suggestions have been given by National Crime Records Bureau, National Police Commission as well as certain NGOs like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, etc. to bring in reforms in terms of amendments in the Police Act, appointing commissions to deal with cases of police brutalities, etc. Not those efforts are lacking in bringing police reform. But humane face of police is still rare.
- Attention is also required to be paid to properly develop work culture, training and orientation of the police force consistent with basic human values. Training methodology of the police needs restructuring. The force needs to be infused with basic human values and made sensitive to the constitute ethos. Efforts must be made to change the attitude and approach of the police personnel.
It is high time that training of police in this direction is given a concrete shape so that it brings about positive results, and the usage of force on citizens is reduced and police officials become more sensitive towards them and fulfil their role as the protector of citizens. Strict action needs to be taken against erring police officials whose actions may not only amount to misconduct but could even be criminal in nature. Letting these erring officials lightly, as has been done in the instant case, by only administering a warning may not be appropriate.
- To check the abuse of police power, transparency of action and accountability perhaps are two possible safeguards which the Supreme Court also insist upon.
- The threat of terrorism must be tackled with novel ideas and approaches. State terrorism is not a viable counter-terrorism strategy. State terrorism would simply serve to legitimize “terrorist.” That would be harmful for the state, the community, and, most importantly, the rule of law.
- Establish clear and explicit guidelines for police intervention in cases of domestic and sexual violence, including standardized arrest policies for perpetrators, the separate categorization of domestic violence in police records, protocols for referring victims of domestic and sexual violence to social, legal and health services, and procedures to protect the privacy and confidentiality of individuals reporting gender-based violence.
- Increase the number of women police officers, their promotion opportunities, and the number of women’s police stations to ensure appropriate personnel are available to escort victims of gender-based violence, record their claims and interview them for the purpose of crime investigation.
REFERENCES-
BOOKS
- P.M. BAKSHI, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 79 (Universal Law Publishing, New Delhi, 14th ed., 2017).
- R.V. KELKAR, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, (Eastern Book Company pvt. Ltd. 2021).
- S.N. MISRA, THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, (Central Law Publications).
- THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1973 (Universal)
LEGISLATIONS-
- The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, NO.2. Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
WEBSITES/PDF-
- LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA CONSULTATION PAPER ON LAW RELATING TO ARREST PART I LAW OF ARREST, Annexure III, LAW OF ARREST (lawcommissionofindia.nic.in).
- G.P.Joshi, ‘Police Accountability in India’
- Nithya Ramakrishnan, In custody: Law, Impunity and Prisoner Abuse in South Asia 5 (Sage Publication Ltd., 2013).
CASE LAWS-
- Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P., (2013) 6 SCC 384.
- Bhim Singh v. State of J & K, (1985) 4 SCC 677.
- Beenu Rawat v. Union of India, (2013) 16 SCC 430.
- D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416.
- GVK Industries Ltd. v. ITO, (2011) 4 SCC 36
- HussainaraKhatoon v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81.
- Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1973 SC 947.
- Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 761.
- Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India, (2014) 2 SCC 532.
- M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, (1978) 3 SCC 544
- Niem.otko v. Maryland, 95 L Ed 267, at 276: 340 US 268, at 282 (1951)
- Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand, (2012) 12 SCC 72.
- Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1579.
- Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 1 SCC 10.
- Ramlila Maidan Incident, In re, (2012) 5 SCC 1.
- Rattiram v. State of M.P., (2012) 4 SCC 516
- Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1086
- Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1579.
- UpendraBaxi v. State of U.P., (1983) 2 SCC 308.
[1] R.V. KELKAR, Criminal Procedure, 19 (Eastern Book Company pvt. Ltd. 2021).
[2] The police Act, 1861 preamble.
[3] Supra note 1.
[4] The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, Section 36, NO.2. Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
[5]The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, Section 50(!), NO.2. Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
[6] The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, Section 50(2), NO.2. Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
[7] R.V. KELKAR’S (2019), Criminal Procedure, pp. 49 (Eastern Book Company, 2019).
[8]The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, Section 41, NO.2. Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
[9] The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, Section 42, NO.2. Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
[10]The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, Section 60, NO.2. Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
[11] The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, Section 152, NO.2. Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India)..
[12] LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA CONSULTATION PAPER ON LAW RELATING TO ARREST PART I LAW OF ARREST, Annexure III, LAW OF ARREST (lawcommissionofindia.nic.in).
[13] Id.
[14] D.K. Basu v. State of W.B, (1997) 1 SCC 416.
[15] Id.
[16] D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416.
[17] Nithya Ramakrishnan, In custody: Law, Impunity and Prisoner Abuse in South Asia 5 (Sage Publication Ltd., 2013).
[18] Id.
[19] Id.
[20] Guidelines for Police Personnel on Various Human Rights Issues, First Edition: 10 December 2010.
[21] G.P.Joshi, ‘Police Accountability in India’
[22] INDIA CONST. art 22.
[23] INDIA CONST. art 20.
[24] UpendraBaxi v. State of U.P., (1983) 2 SCC 308.
[25] M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, (1978) 3 SCC 544; Article 39-A, Constitution of India.
[26] Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1973 SC 947.
[27] Rattiram v. State of M.P., (2012) 4 SCC 516.
[28] D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416.
[29] Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 761.
[30] Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1579.
[31] Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1579.
[32] Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1086; Bhim Singh v. State of J & K, (1985) 4 SCC 677.
[33] P.M. BAKSHI, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 79 (Universal Law Publishing, New Delhi, 14th ed., 2017).
[34] D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416.
[35] The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, Section 42, NO.2. Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
[36] The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, Section 152, NO.2. Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
[37] The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, Section 50, NO.2. Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
[38] The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, Section 46(4), NO.2. Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
[39] The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, Section 160 (1), NO.2. Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
[40] LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA CONSULTATION PAPER ON LAW RELATING TO ARREST PART I LAW OF ARREST, Annexure III, LAW OF ARREST (lawcommissionofindia.nic.in),(8 April, 2022, at 7:40 am).
[41] Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 1 SCC 10.
[42] Beenu Rawat v. Union of India, (2013) 16 SCC 430.
[43] Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand, (2012) 12 SCC 72.
[44] Niem.otko v. Maryland, 95 L Ed 267, at 276: 340 US 268, at 282 (1951)
[45] GVK Industries Ltd. v. ITO, (2011) 4 SCC 36
[46]Ramlila Maidan Incident, In re, (2012) 5 SCC 1.
[47] D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416.
[48] Guidelines for Police Personnel on Various Human Rights Issues, First Edition: 10 December 2010.
[49] Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 1 SCC 10.
[50] Id.
[51] D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416.
Author – Arshpreet kaur (BA.LL.B – Vth Sem)
Chanakya National Law University, Patna