Supreme Court: Failure to Provide Written Grounds of Arrest May Trigger Departmental Inquiry
Police must order a transfer of investigation and initiate departmental proceedings against officers who failed to furnish written grounds of arrest if they seek to arrest an accused again.
The Supreme Court today ruled that police must transfer an investigation to another officer and initiate departmental proceedings against officers who failed to furnish written grounds of arrest if they intend to re-arrest an accused who has been released on account of their failure to do so.
Recapping earlier rulings on the issue, the Bench said that it had held that non-supply of written grounds of arrest contravenes Article 22(1) of the Constitution and invalidates the arrest. “On account of such non-furnishing of written grounds of arrest, the accused who has been arrested is to be released from illegal and unconstitutional detention,” the Court held.
Clarifying that such an order of release does not immunise the accused against arrest in the same case at a later date, the Bench said that if the agency tasked with investigation still wants to place the accused in its custody, it would have first to furnish written grounds of arrest and approach the magistrate for permission for such custody.
These instructions come on top of the safeguards stipulated by the Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra while permitting police to again seek the accused’s custody.
The Bench observed that on the administrative side, when the superior authority is presented with an application seeking his endorsement for granting custody of the accused who has been released because of the violation of Article 22(1), he shall direct:
Transfer of investigation in the case to another officer; and
Ordering of departmental enquiry into such a serious lapse on the part of the investigating officer.
The Court passed these directions while setting aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s dismissal of Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol’s plea challenging his re-arrest after the magistrate permitted the police to seek his custody again after complying with the requirements of law.
Deol was arrested on 17 May in connection with an FIR registered against him in Punjab for allegedly sexually assaulting a minor girl and produced before a magistrate more than 24 hours later.
The magistrate, noticing that Deol had not furnished written grounds of arrest, termed his arrest illegal and ordered him released from custody immediately.
However, she permitted the police to seek his custody afresh, after complying with the requirements of Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
Deol then moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking an order restraining his arrest again. The High Court rejected this application holding that his initial arrest, having been illegal, did not confer immunity to him against a subsequent arrest in conformity with law.
Deol then challenged the High Court’s order in the Supreme Court.
Today, the Bench relied on its judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah observing that if police intend to place the accused in their custody after he has been released for violation of Article 22(1), they must first satisfy the magistrate that the grounds for arrest could not be initially furnished for bona fide reasons, that such grounds are now furnished and that the police require his custody for reasons justifiable in law.
Endorsing the reasoning and ruling in Mihir Rajesh Shah, the Court held that the guidelines spelled out therein while permitting the police to secure the accused’s custody apply squarely to the facts of this case.
Setting aside the magistrate’s observations allowing the investigating agency to initiate proceedings against Deol and the High Court’s order dismissing his plea, the Bench said that if the police believe that they need Deol’s custody for investigation, they will approach the magistrate as prescribed in Mihir Rajesh Shah and also comply with the safeguards laid down above.
