Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High Court

“Even a Criminal is Entitled to Dignity” : Supreme Court Slams Haryana Police for Violating Arnesh Kumar Guidelines; Orders Nationwide Circulation of Safeguards Against Illegal Arrests

03 April 2025 1:39 PM

By: sayum


“A Common Man May Exceed Limits, but Not the Police” — Supreme Court Deplores Haryana Police for High-Handedness and Mechanical Arrests. Supreme Court, in Vijay Pal Yadav vs. Mamta Singh & Others, sternly reminded the Haryana Police and law enforcement agencies across India that “even a criminal, under the law of our land, enjoys certain safeguards in order to ensure protection of his person and dignity.” The Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra censured the Haryana Police for arresting the petitioner in blatant disregard of the landmark guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar.

The Court found prima facie that the petitioner was arrested and physically assaulted by the police without following mandatory procedures under Section 41(1)(b)(ii) CrPC. The Court commented, “We find that there appears to be evident high-handedness on the part of the police in this case.”

Supreme Court: “Checklist under Section 41 CrPC mechanically filled defeats judicial oversight”

The Court, scrutinizing the checklist supposedly prepared by the police before arrest, observed: “Perusal of the same prima facie does not inspire confidence. Rather, it appears that only as a formality, the same has been submitted.” The Court further stressed, “We express our strong reservations with regard to filling-up of the checklist in a mechanical manner. Further, we caution and order that in futuro, such acts should not recur.”

The Bench went a step further by directing not only the Haryana police but also all Judicial Magistrates to stop mechanically accepting such checklists without due scrutiny. The Court underlined that the statutory safeguard under Section 41 CrPC is not an empty formality but a protection of personal liberty.

Director General of Police, Haryana Personally Cautioned — Zero Tolerance Mandated

While refraining from interfering in the pending criminal case, the Court issued a stern warning to Haryana Police. It categorically held, “The concerned police officers are cautioned and warned to be careful in future. The Director General is also directed to ensure that such type of occurrences do not recur and there should be zero-tolerance on behalf of the senior officer(s) with regard to any alleged transgression of authority by any subordinate officer(s).”

The Court emphasized the larger public interest involved, stating, “The police is a very vital part of the State apparatus and has a direct bearing on the safety and security of the society at large and individuals in particular.”

Court Directs Nationwide Circulation of Safeguards to DGPs and Delhi Police Commissioner

The Supreme Court, invoking its constitutional responsibility to uphold human dignity, ordered that the judgment along with its previous ruling in Somnath vs. State of Maharashtra be circulated to all DGPs and the Delhi Police Commissioner.

 

Quoting Somnath, the Court reiterated, “There will be a general direction to the police forces in all States and Union Territories as also all agencies endowed with the power of arrest and custody to scrupulously adhere to all Constitutional and statutory safeguards.”

In closing, the Court warned that any future recurrence will invite severe consequences, stating, “We are confident that the Director General of Police has been appropriately sensitized... failing which, a very strict view shall be taken, and coercive measures shall also follow against the errant personnel.”

Date of Decision: 26.03.2025

Latest Legal News