Dr.

Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation

University, Lucknow

PROJECT ON
RIGHTS OF ARRESTED PERSON

SUBMITED TO: - SUBMITED BY: -

Mrs. Shipra Dubey Himanshu Raja
Faculty of Law Roll No – 25
Semester SUBJECT: -
6th CRPC
 Annexure ‘A’– Front-page and Cover

TITLE OF PROJECT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------- RIGHTS OF ARRESTED PERSON--------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted by

Himanshu Raja
-----------------------------------------

B.COM L.L.B (Hons.) 6 Th Semester

Roll No…25

Of

Faculty of Law

Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University, Lucknow

In

MARCH, 2018

Under the guidance of

Mrs. Shipra Dubey

Faculty of Law
 Annexure ‘B’– Certificate

CERTIFICATE

The project entitled “Rights-of-Arrested-Person- [’’submitted to the Faculty of Law,

Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University, Lucknow for CRPC, as
part of Internal assessment, is based on my original work carried out under the
guidance of Mrs. Shipra Dubey.

The research work has not been submitted elsewhere for award of any degree. The
material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the thesis has been duly
acknowledged. I understand that I myself could be held responsible and accountable
for plagiarism, if any, detected later on.

Himanshu Raja
Signature of the candidate
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Mrs. Shipra

Dubey as well as our Head of Department Dr. A. K. Dubey who gave me the golden
opportunity to do this wonderful project on the topic “Rights-of-Arrested-Person- ’’,
which also helped me in doing a lot of Research and i came to know about so many
new things I am really thankful to them.

Secondly I would also like to thank my parents and friends

who helped me a lot in finalizing this project within the limited time frame.
 TABLE OF CONTENT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………….4

TABLE OF CONTENT…………………………………………………...5

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………...6

RIGHTS OF AN ARRESTED PERSON………………………………………...7

RIGHT UNDER INDIAN CONSTITUTION…………………………….8

RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE GROUNDS OF ARREST ………9

RIGHT TO CONSULT AND TO BE DEFENDED BY LEGAL

PRACTITIONER…………………………………………………………10

RIGHT TO BE PRODUCED BEFORE A MAGISTRATE……………..12

CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………...14

BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………...…15
 INTRODUCTION

One of the basic tenets of our legal system is the benefit of the presumption of
innocence of the accused till he is found guilty at the end of a trial on legal evidence.
In a democratic society even the rights of the accused are sacrosanct, though accused
of an offence, he does not become a non-person. Rights of the accused include the
rights of the accused at the time of arrest, at the time of search and seizure, during the
process of trial and the like.

The accused in India are afforded certain rights, the most basic of which are found in
the Indian Constitution. The general theory behind these rights is that the government
has enormous resources available to it for the prosecution of individuals, and
individuals therefore are entitled to some protection from misuse of those powers by
the government. An accused has certain rights during the course of any investigation;
enquiry or trial of an offence with which he is charged and he should be protected
against arbitrary or illegal arrest. Police have a wide powers conferred on them to
arrest any person under Cognizable offence without going to magistrate, so Court
should be vigilant to see that theses powers are not abused for lightly used for personal
benefits. No arrest can be made on mere suspicion or information. Even private person
cannot follow and arrest a person on the statement of another person, however
impeachable it is.

Though the police has been given various powers for facilitating the making of arrests,
the powers are subject to certain restraints. These restraints are primarily provided for
the protection of the interests of the person to be arrested, and also of the society at
large. 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.
 RIGHTS OF AN ARRESTED PERSON

Right to be informed of the grounds of arrest- This is a statutorily recognized right of

an arrested person to be informed about the grounds of arrest. Sections 50 and 50A of
the CrPC imposes a legal duty to communicate the arrested person grounds of his/her
arrest without any delay.

Even Article 22(1) of the Constitution extends protection to arrested person and states
that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed of
the grounds for such arrest.

Timely intimation of the grounds of arrest is imperative in order to avoid any mistake
or misunderstanding (if any) committed by the arresting authority.

“ARREST” MEANS:

The purpose of an arrest is to bring the arrestee before a court or otherwise secure the
administration of the law. An arrest serves the function of notifying the community
that an individual has been accused of a crime and also may admonish and deter the
arrested individual from committing other crimes. Arrests can be made on both
criminal charges and civil charges, although civil arrest is a drastic measure that is not
looked upon with favour by the courts. The federal Constitution imposes limits on
both civil and criminal arrests.
 RIGHT UNDER INDIAN CONSTITUTION

First two clauses of Article 22 read as follows:

ARTICLE 12: Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases -

(1) 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.

(2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced
before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest
excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest 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.

Article 22 (1) and (2) confers four following fundamental rights upon a person who
has been arrested:

i) Right to be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest.
ii) Right to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.

iii) Right to be produced before the nearest magistrate within twenty-four

hours of his arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the
place of arrest to the Court of Magistrate.

iv) Right not to be detained in custody beyond the period of twentyfour

hours without the authority of the Magistrate.
 RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE GROUNDS OF ARREST

The object underlying the provision that the ground for arrest should be communicated
to the person arrested appears to be this. On learning about the ground for arrest, the
man will be in a position to make an application to the appropriate court for bail or
move the High Court for a writ of habeas corpus.

Further, the information will enable the arrested person to prepare his defence in time
for purposes of his trial. For these reasons, it has been provided in clause (1) of Article
22 that the ground for the arrest must be communicated to the person arrested as soon
as possible.

In re, Madhu Limaye1 the facts were: Madhu Limaye, Member of the Lok Sabha and

several other persons were arrested. Madhu Limaye addressed a petition in the form of

a letter to the Supreme Court under Article 32 mentioning that he along with his

companions had been arrested but had not been communicated the reasons or the

grounds for arrest. It was stated that the arrested persons had been merely told that the

arrest had been made “under sections which are bailable”. In the return filed by the

State this assertion had neither been controverted nor had anything been stated with

reference to it. One of the contentions raised by Madhu Limaye was that there was a

violation of the mandatory provisions of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution

1
A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 1014.
 RIGHT TO CONSULT AND TO BE DEFENDED BY LEGAL
PRACTITIONER

In Article 22 (1) the opportunity for securing services of lawyer is alone guaranteed.
The Article does not require the state to extend legal aid as such but only requires to
allow all reasonable facilities to engage a lawyer to the person arrested and detained in
custody. The choice of counsel is entirely left to the arrested person. The right to
consult arises soon after arrest.

In Janardhan Reddy v. State of Hyderabad2 one of the main points urged on behalf
of the petitioners was that in criminal cases Nos. 17 & 18 of 1949, there was no fair
trial, in as much as the persons accused in those cases were not afforded any
opportunity to instruct counsel and they had remained undefended throughout the trial.
So it was contended that the whole trial in these cases was bad, because the accused
were denied the right of being defended by a pleader. Fourth para of the affidavit filed
on behalf of the petitioners read as follows:

The Court never offered to facilitate my communication with my relations and

friends or to adjourn the case or to appoint counsel at state expense for my
defence. In fact they said they would not adjourn the case under any
circumstances. Being ignorant, I did not know that I had any right to ask for any
of these things.

2
A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 217.
As to the circumstances under which the accused were not represented by a lawyer a
counter-affidavit filed by Mr. Hanumantha Naidu, a senior police officer, who
investigated the case stated : Facilities were given to the accused to engage lawyers
for their defence. In case in which the accused had no means to engage pleaders for
their defence and applied to the Tribunal for appointment of pleaders at Government
cost, this was done. In some cases, the accused declined to accept the pleaders
appointed by the Tribunal for their defence. Some engaged pleaders of their choice at
their cost. Some accused stated that they did not want any lawyer to defend them.

Judges of the High Court had expressed the view that the contention that the Tribunal
did not give the accused an adequate opportunity to engage lawyers was not well-
founded. The Supreme Court observed in this connection that suggestion of the High
Court that the curious attitude adopted by the accused, to whatever cause it may have
been due, to some extent accounts for their not being represented by a lawyer cannot
be ruled out. However, the Supreme Court further added that the Special Tribunal
should have taken some positive steps to assign a lawyer to aid the accused in their
defence.
 RIGHT TO BE PRODUCED BEFORE A MAGISTRATE

Whether the Abducted Persons (Recovery and Restoration) Act 65 of 1949 violates
Article 22 and whether the recovery of a person as an
abducted person and the delivery of such person to the nearest camp can be said to bea
rrest and detention within the meaning of Article 22 (1) and (2) was thequestion
elaborately dealt with by the Supreme Court in

State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh. This appeal arose out of a habeas corpus petition
filed by oneAjaib Singh in the High Court of Punjab for the production and release of
oneSardaran alias Mukhtiar Kaur, a girl of about 12 years of age. The
materialfacts were : The petitioner Ajaib Singh had three abducted persons in
his possession. The recovery police of Ferozpore, on 22-6-1951 raided his houseand
took the girl into custody and delivered her to the custody of the Officer incharge of
the Muslim Transit Camp at Ferozpore from whence she was later transferred

to and lodged in the Recovered Muslim Women‟s Camp in

Jullundhur City. The girl was a Muslim abducted by the petitioner during theriots of
1947 and was, therefore, an abducted person as defined in S. 2 (1) (a),Abducted
Persons (Recovery and Restoration) Act 65 of 1949. The PoliceOfficers recommended
in their report that she should be sent to Pakistan for restoration to her next of kin.

Serious riots broke-up in India and Pakistan in the wake of partition of August 1947
resulting in a colossal mass exodus of Muslims from India toPakistan and of Hindu
and Sikhs from Pakistan to India. There were heartrending tales of abduction of
women and children on both sides of the border.On 11-11-1948 an Inter-Dominion
Agreement between India and Pakistanwas arrived at for the recovery of abducted
persons on both sides of the border. To implement that agreement Act 65 of 1949 was
passed.

The Supreme Court held that the Act did not offend against the provisions of Article
22 of the Constitution.
The Constitution commands that every person arrested and detained incustody shall be
produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hoursexcluding the time requisite for
the journey from the place of arrest to theCourt of the Magistrate, but S. 4 of the Act
requires the police officer whotakes the abducted person into custody to deliver such
person to the custody of the officer in charge of the nearest camp for the reception and
detention of abducted persons. The absence from the Act of the salutary provisions to
befound in Article 22 (1) and (2) as to the right of the arrested person to beinformed of
the grounds of such arrest and to consult and to be defended by alegal practitioner of
his choice is also significant.

The sole point for the consideration of the Court was whether thetaking into custody
of an abducted person by a police officer under S. 4 of theAct and the delivery of such
person by him into the custody of the officer incharge of the nearest camp can be
regarded as arrest and detention within themeaning of Article 22(1) and (2).
 CONCLUSION

It is generally believed that in spite of the various safeguards in the Cr.P.C. as well as
the in the Constitution, the power of arrest given to the police is being misused till this
day. It is also believed that the police often use their position of power to threaten the
arrested persons and take advantage of their office to extort money. There have also
been innumerable reports on custodial violence that lead many to believe that
deprivation of basic rights of the arrested persons has become commonplace
nowadays.

The Mallimath Committee in its Report on the reforms in the Criminal Justice System
has stated that the accused has the right to know the rights given to him under law and
how to enforce such rights. There have also been criticisms that the police fail to
inform the persons arrested of the charge against them and hence, let the arrested
persons flounder in custody, in complete ignorance of their alleged crimes. This has
been attributed to the Colonial nature of our Criminal Justice System where the duty
of arrest was thrust upon the Indian officers while the Britishers drew up the charge
against the accused. Thus, it is entirely possible that the English origins of the Indian
Criminal Justice system may have resulted unwittingly in the rights of the arrested
persons falling through the cracks.

There is imminent need to bring in changes in Criminal Justice Administration so that

state should recognize that its primary duty is not to punish, but to socialize and
reform the wrongdoer and above all it should be clearly understood that socialization
is not identical with punishment, for its comprises prevention, education, care and
rehabilitation within the framework of social defence. Thus, in the end we find that
Rule of law regulates the functionary of every organ of the state machinery, including
the agency responsible for conducting prosecution and investigation which must
confine themselves within the four corners of the law.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOK

R.V.Kelkar, Criminal procedure code, 6th edition,

Website

 http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/AarushiVerdict.pdf
 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/853252/
 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/768175/
 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/108844/
 http://daily.bhaskar.com/news/UP-nithari-massacre-gruesome-killings-in-
noidas-house-of-horrors-and-the-story-behi-4318234-PHO.html
 http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2013/11/27/judgment-in-full-aarushi-talwar-
murder-case/
 http://ujala.uk.gov.in/files/Ch12.pdf