Know Your Rights : Rights of Accused Before and After Arrest in India

As per Article 21 of the Constitution of India, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law, nor shall any person be denied equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India”. It also covers a just and fair trial without any arbitrary procedure, which confers that arrest should not only be legal but also justified. In this context, this article consists of the procedural and constitutional rights of the accused before and after the arrest in India. Except when exceptions are created, the accused person, unless and until provided otherwise, is considered innocent until proven guilty before the court of law.

Rights of an accused person in India

Rights to know the grounds of arrest

1. Article 22 of the Constitution of India deals with the protection against arrest and detention in certain cases-

• No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as possible, 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.

2. Section 50 of the Code of the Criminal procedure (Cr.P.C.) states that the person arrested has to be informed of the grounds of arrest and his right to bail-

• Every police officer or other person arresting any person without a warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offense for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest.

• Where a police officer arrests without warrant any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offense, he shall inform the person arrested that he is entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange for sureties on his behalf.

3. Section 50-A of the Code of the Criminal procedure (Cr.P.C.) talks about the obligation of the police officer making the arrest to inform about the arrest to a nominated person –

• 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 to give such information.

4. Section 55 of the Code of the Criminal procedure (Cr.P.C.) deals with arrests when a police officer deputes a subordinate to arrest the accused without a warrant.

• When any officer in charge of a police station or any police officer making an investigation under Chapter XII requires any officer subordinate to him to arrest without a warrant (otherwise than in his presence) any person who may lawfully be arrested without a warrant, he shall deliver to the officer required to make the arrest order in writing, specifying the person to be controlled and the offense or other cause for which the arrest is to be completed and the officer so required shall, before making the arrest, notify to the person to be arrested the substance of the order and, if so required by such person, shall show him the order.

5. Section 75 of the Code of the Criminal procedure (Cr.P.C.) provides that the police officer or other person executing a warrant of arrest shall notify the substance thereof to the person to be arrested and, if so required, shall show him the warrant.

A landmark judgment of Joginder Kumar vs. state it was held that although the police had the absolute legal powers to arrest a person in a criminal case, every arrest had to be justified. Arrests could not be made routinely, merely on an allegation or a suspicion of their involvement in a crime.

Every arrest should be made after the police officer reached a reasonable satisfaction after the Investigation that the complaint was genuine and bona fide, the accused was complicit in the Crime, and the arrest was necessary and justified. [1]

Right to be produced before the Magistrate without unnecessary delay

1. Article 22 (2) of the Constitution of India provides that every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within twenty-four hours of such arrest, excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of detention to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate.

2. Section 55 of the Code of the Criminal procedure (Cr.P.C.) stipulates that the subject to the terms of the arrest, a police officer who arrests without a warrant should produce the arrested individual without undue delay before the Magistrate with jurisdiction or a police officer in charge of the police station.

3. Section 76 of the Code of the Criminal procedure (Cr.P.C.) states that the person who is arrested is to be brought before Court without delay.

• The police officer or other person executing a warrant of arrest shall without unnecessary delay, bring the person arrested before the Court before which he is required by law to produce such person:

Provided that such delay shall not, in any case, exceed twenty- four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s Court.

 

Rights to be released on Bail

Section 50 (2) of the Code of the Criminal procedure (Cr.P.C.) states that where a police officer arrests without warrant any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offense, he shall inform the person arrested that he is entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange for sureties on his behalf.

Right to a fair and just trial

Article 14 of the Constitution of India states that every person is equal before the law means that every person in the dispute shall have equal treatment.

The Supreme Court has held in several judgments that a speedy trial is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to a speedy trial is first mentioned in that landmark document of English law, the Magna Carta. In the case of Huissainara Khatoon vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, the Hon’ble court held that the State could not avoid its constitutional obligation to provide a speedy trial to the accused by pleading financial or administrative inability. The State is under a constitutional mandate to ensure a speedy trial, and whatever is necessary for this purpose must be done by the State. [2]

In Ashim vs. National investigation agency, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring a speedy trial is inconsistent with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. [3]

Right to consult a Lawyer

1. Article 22 of the Constitution provides that no arrested person shall be denied the right to consult a legal practitioner of his choice.

2. Section 41D of the Code of the Criminal procedure (Cr.P.C.) provides that when any person is arrested and interrogated by the police, he shall be entitled to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.

3. Section 303 of the Code of the Criminal procedure (Cr.P.C.) deals with the rights of the person against whom proceedings are instituted. Any person accused of an offense before a Criminal Court or against whom proceedings are created under this Code may be defended by a pleader of his choice.

4. Article 39 A of the Constitution of India states that the State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice based on equal opportunity and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen because of economic or other disabilities.

In the landmark case of Khatri v. the State of Bihar, Hon’ble Justice P.N. Bhagwati made it mandatory for Session Judges to inform the accused of their rights to free legal aid and to advise individuals if they are unable to retain a counsel to defend themselves caused by poverty or destitution. [4]

In Sheela Barse v. Union of India, the Hon’ble Court ruled that a person’s fundamental right to a speedy trial is contained in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution[5].

Also, in the case of Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, Hon’ble Justice P. N. Bhagwati stated that India has many illiterate people unaware of their rights. As a result, it is critical to developing legal literacy and awareness among the general public and is also an essential component of legal aid. [6]

5. Section 304 of the Code of the Criminal procedure (Cr.P.C.) provides that where, in a trial before the Court of Session, the accused is not represented by a pleader, and where it appears to the Court that the accused has not sufficient means to engage a pleader, the Court shall assign a pleader for his defense at the expense of the State.

Right to keep silence

When a confession or statement is made in court, the magistrate must determine whether the announcement was made voluntarily or not. No one can be compelled to speak in court against their will. The right to remain silent is not recognized in any law, but it can be based on constitutional provisions or the Indian Evidence Act. The right to a fair trial is important because it helps ensure that people are treated fairly in court.

Article- 20(2) of the Constitution of India reiterates that no person, whether accused or not, cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. This act of exposing oneself is the principle of self-incrimination.

In the Landmark judgment of Nandini Sathpathy vs. P.L. Dani & others, the Court noted that Article 20(3) existed in the form of general fundamental right protection and was available to every accused person in India. Still, its wording was not very specific about which situations it applied to. Also, no one can forcibly extract statements from the accused, and the accused has the right to keep silent during interrogation (investigation).

Right to be examined by a Doctor

Section 54 of the Code of the Criminal procedure (Cr.P.C.) stipulates that when a person who is arrested, whether on a charge or otherwise, alleges, at the time when he is produced before a Magistrate or at any time during the period of his detention in custody, that the examination of his body will afford evidence which will disprove the commission by him of any offense or which will establish the commission by any other person of any crime against his body, the Magistrate shall, if requested by the arrested person so to do direct the examination of the body of such person by a registered medical practitioner unless the Magistrate considers that the request is made for vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice.

Additional rights available to an arrested person

1. Section 55A of the Code of the Criminal procedure (Cr.P.C.) deals with the health and safety of an 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.

2. Section 358 of the Code of the Criminal procedure (Cr.P.C.) deals with the compensation to persons who got arrested groundlessly-

• Whenever any person causes a police officer to arrest another person, if it appears to the Magistrate by whom the case is heard that there was no sufficient ground for causing such arrest, the Magistrate may award such compensation, not exceeding [one thousand rupees], to be paid by the person so causing the arrest to the person so arrested, for his loss of time and expenses in the matter, as the Magistrate thinks fit.

• In such cases, if more persons than one are arrested, the Magistrate may, in like manner, award to each of them such compensation, not exceeding [one thousand rupees], as such Magistrate thinks fit.

• All compensation awarded under this section may be recovered as if it were fine, and, if it cannot be so recovered, the person by whom it is payable shall be sentenced to simple imprisonment for such term not exceeding thirty days as the Magistrate directs unless such sum is sooner paid.

3.  Section 41A of The Code of the Criminal procedure (Cr.P.C.) provides the notice of appearance of arrested person before a police officer.

• The police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 41, issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offense, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice.

• Where such a notice is issued to any person, it shall be that person’s duty to comply with the terms of the notice.

• Where such person complies and continues to adhere to the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offense referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer believes that he should be arrested.

• Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may, subject to such orders as may have been passed by a competent Court on this behalf, arrest him for the offense mentioned in the notice.

In Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar &Anr, the Supreme Court had inter-alia directed that the notice of appearance in section 41A CrPC should be served on the accused before making the arrest. The Court had issued the direction to prevent unnecessary arrests, which, in the opinion of the Court, bring humiliation, curtail freedom and cast scars forever.  The endeavor of the court was to ensure that police officer do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize detention casually and mechanically. The Supreme Court also gave the following directions:

 

• • All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.P.C.;

• • All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);

• • The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the magistrate for further detention;

• • The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention;

• • The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

• • Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.P.C. be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

• • Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

• • Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

The judgment of the Supreme Court in Munawar Vs. The State of M.P., since the police had failed to issue a notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C., as mandated by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs.the state of Bihar, the applicants ought to have been straightway admitted to interim bail .

4. Section- 46 of the Code of the Criminal procedure (Cr.P.C.) stipulates the mode of arresting an accused person, including submission to the custody by the accused, physically touching the body, or to a body.

Except when the person to be arrested is accused of an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment, when the accused person is attempting to resist his arrest by becoming violent and aggressive unnecessarily, or when the accused is trying to flee, the police officer must not cause the death of the accused person while attempting to arrest the person.

5. Section 49 of the Code of the Criminal procedure (Cr.P.C.) stipulates that the person arrested shall not be subjected to more restraint than is necessary to prevent his escape.

In D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal Supreme Court held that under Section 49, the police are not permitted to use more restraint than is necessary to prevent the person’s escape. The court further stated that the police officer would be held in contempt of court and subject to a departmental inquiry if they could not carry out his duties correctly. Any High Court with jurisdiction over the case above may be approached for such a dispute.

6. Section 41B of the Code of the Criminal procedure (Cr.P.C.) states the arrest procedure and duties of the officer making an arrest. Unless the memorandum is attested by a member of his family, inform the person arrested that he has a right to have a relative or a friend named by him be informed of his arrest.

7. 41D of the Code of the Criminal procedure (Cr.P.C.) stipulates that when any person is arrested and interrogated by the police, he shall be entitled to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.

Conclusion

Modern constitutional law has come a long way in terms of protecting and safeguarding the rights of persons guilty of crimes. Patrol officers are especially prone to making mistakes since they serve under public scrutiny and are expected to achieve speedy results. India has a significant problem with illegal arrests and custodial deaths, primarily caused by unlawful arrests. According to India’s legal system, which supports the concept of “Innocent until proven guilty,” an accused person has certain rights as an arrested person that are untouched whenever a police officer knocks on his door to make an arrest. The Supreme Court of India in D.K. Basu vs. West Bengal is not being effectively implemented.  There should be proper execution of provisions and guidelines stated in this case to ultimately assist in decreasing the proportion of illegal arrests and resulting custodial deaths.

References :

[1]   Joginder Kumar v State of UP, AIR 1994 SC 1349

[2] Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna (09.03.1979 – SC) : MANU/SC/0121/1979

[3] Ashim vs. National Investigation Agency (01.12.2021 – SC): MANU/SC/1169/2021

[4] Khatri and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (19.12.1980 – SC): MANU/SC/0518/1981

[5] Sheela Barse vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (29.08.1988 – SC): MANU/SC/0437/1988

[6] Suk Das vs. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh (10.03.1986 – SC): MANU/SC/0140/1986