Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 1317 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking direction to forthwith set his father at liberty from illegal detention - petitioner contended that the detention and arrest of the detenue was in complete violation of his indefeasible rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21, 22(1), and 22(2) of the Constitution and the procedural rights, inter-alia, in Sections 50, 50A and 57 Cr.P.C. - validity of remand order - violation of rights or not - HELD THAT:- It is noticed that Article 22(2) of the Constitution mandates that every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest Magistrate within a period of 24 hours of his arrest excluding the time necessary for journey from the place of arrest to the Court of the Magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the aforesaid period without the authority of a Magistrate. Chapter V of the Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes the complete procedure of arrest of persons. Section 41 Cr.P.C. vests power on a police officer to arrest any person, who is either involved or suspected to be involved in cognizable and non-cognizable offences. In the case of a non-cognizable offence, however, the power to investigate such offence requires prior order of a competent Magistrate. A conjoint reading of Sections 50 and 50A Cr.P.C. reveals that once the police officer arrests a person it is obligatory on his part to inform the arrestee the full particulars of the grounds of arrest and inform about arrest and place where he is being held to his friends, relatives or such other persons as may be disclosed or nominated by him - it can be inferred that assuming that the detenue was picked up from his residence at Tingkhong, Dibrugarh for the purpose of interrogation or investigation by the police, it neither amounted to arrest nor detention, nor taking into custody as certainly enough there was no legal surveillance or restrictions on the movements of the detenue in any manner during the period of his voluntary co-operation in preliminary enquiry in the said case within the meaning and scope of Section 46 Cr.P.C. Where the detenue voluntarily accompanied with police to assist in investigation, there was no obligation on the part of the investigating police officer to ensure compliance of the obligations, provided under Sections 50, 50A and to obtain a transit remand under Section 167 Cr.P.C. in respect of the said detenue and as such, there was certainly no violation of the fundamental rights stipulated in the aforesaid Sections of Cr.P.C. or the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The detenue voluntarily cooperated with the investigating police officer in the preliminary enquiry in connection with Fatasil Ambari P.S. Case No. 817/2021 and voluntarily moved with them to Guwahati from Naharkatiya Tingkhong residence assuring to deliver certain relevant documents which were available at his Guwahati residence and accordingly, after they reached the said Police Station, the police asked him for refreshment and bring the documents from his Guwahati residence - In the instant petition, it is noticed that the detenue was put under arrest on 16.12.2021 at 6 p.m. observing necessary formalities as required under Sections 50 and 50A Cr.P.C. and produced him before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate at Guwahati on the following day, that is, on 17.12.2021 at 1.45 p.m., that is, within a period of 24 hours of his arrest. There is no confusion, if one looks at the records, that in anterior period to the detenue's formal arrest, he was neither detained nor arrested within the implications of Section 41 or 41B Cr.P.C. Therefore, it cannot be said that the detenue's right under Article 22(2) of the Constitution read with Sections 56 and 57 Cr.P.C. was violated. No illegality in remand order - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the above impugned order, it is revealed that the learned Judicial Magistrate on being satisfied that the detenue on his own engaged a counsel to defend his case and that his arrest and detention in connection with the said case was justified and further, that the provisions contained in Sections 50, 50A and 57 Cr.P.C. were duly complied with granted his police custody under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. for 2(two) days subject to the guidelines - It is apparent that the learned Judicial Magistrate having found no irregularity in anterior part of formal arrest and post arrest period of the detenue, felt no necessity to proceed against the investigating officer or take judicial notice of alleged unfounded irregularities/illegalities. Petition dismissed.
|