A was arrested by a police party from his house and kept in a secluded building for three days, without informing any person about the arrest or the place of his detention. For all these days A was neither told about the reasons or grounds of his arrest now permitted to contact any person. After three days of confinement, A was released and informed that he was free to go anywhere. What are the illegalities involved in the above arrest process? [Punj JS 2001]

Question: A was arrested by a police party from his house and kept in a secluded building for three days, without informing any person about the arrest or the place of his detention. For all these days A was neither told about the reasons or grounds of his arrest now permitted to contact any person. After three days of confinement, A was released and informed that he was free to go anywhere. What are the illegalities involved in the above arrest process? [Punj JS 2001]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A was arrested by a police party from his house and kept in a secluded building for three days, without informing any person about the arrest or the place of his detention. For all these days A was neither told about the reasons or grounds of his arrest now permitted to contact any person. After three days of confinement, A was released and informed that he was free to go anywhere. What are the illegalities involved in the above arrest process?]

Answer

There are certain Rights of arrested persons against their detention and this right is safeguarded as a fundamental right under the Constitution of India. Article 22(1) of the Constitution provides that “no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed as soon as may be, of 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”. Every arrest requires reason and justification, apart and distinct from the power to arrest.

In view of this, it was held in the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. [1994 AIR 1349] that a detained person should know the cause of his detention and is entitled to let any third person know the location of his detention. This right protects the accused from being detained on wrong or irrelevant grounds. The second clause 22(2) says that the Persons arrested are to be taken before the Magistrate within 24 hours without unnecessary delay and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate.

In the case of State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh [1953 AIR 10], this right was infringed and thus the victim was provided compensation as a constitutional remedy. It was held that cases of arrest without warrant require greater protection and production of the accused before the Magistrate within 24 hours ensures the legality of the arrest, not complying with which would deem the arrest unlawful.

In the present case at hand, there are the following illegalities that are in contravention to Article 22 (1) and 22 (2).

• A was arrested from his house, without citing the reasons and relevant grounds for the basis of his arrest.
• A was not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours
• A was not given the right to consult or to be defended by a legal practitioner.

Therefore, applying the above propositions, it is clear that the arrest of ‘A’ made by the police is completely frivolous, with no reasonable grounds, and in clear contravention, to the fundamental rights of the arrested person as mentioned under Article 22 (1) and 22(2) of the Indian Constitution.

In the case of Hussainara Khatoon & Ors v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar [1979 AIR 1369], the courts observed that a large number of people were arrested awaiting their trial in a court of law. The arrests were made irrespective of the charge and its graveness. The accused were under arrest, deprived of their freedom even before the commencement of their trial, and the charge actually being proved which stands unreasonable.

The Supreme Court showing concern over the matter interpreted that speedy trial is a constitutional right although it is nowhere explicitly mentioned. It was held that an investigation should be held as soon as possible and in no case is the state permitted to deny speedy trial on any grounds. It was also stated that in cases of arrest for trivial charges the trial must be completed within six months. It was also declared that the right to free legal aid is a fundamental right which was later expressly mentioned through amendments.

It was also observed that the Supreme Court had powers to enact a DPSP into a fundamental right. Further, the court also holds a constitutional obligation to provide free legal aid to every indigent person under trial. Although this right is not mentioned under the purview of Article 22, it still witnesses a direct mention under Article 39(A) and is implicit in Article 21 of our constitution.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-I
2. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-I
3. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-II
4. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-IV
5. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-V
6. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-VI
7. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-VII
8. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
9. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-IX
10. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-X