JOGINDER KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 661 · Decided: 25-04-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, S. MOHAN, A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

i 
-f 
JOGINDER KUMAR 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS 
APRIL 25, 1994 
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, 0., S. MOHAN AND 
DR. A.S. ANAND, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Criminal Law : A1Test by police-Violation of human rights because of 
indiscriminate arresi--Protection of persons from the oppression and abuse 
by police-Enforcement of fundamental right to life and liberty-Requirements C 
·to be followed in all cases of "Qrrests-Laid down. 
Cr. PC 1971-Guide lines laid down for arrest with or without wa1Tant 
depending upon the circumstances of a particular case. Constitution of 
,. 
India-Art. 21-f'rotection of life and personal liberty-f'rotection against D 
arrest and detention in certain cases-No detention without information of 
' \ 
.) 
the grounds for such 01Test-Righl to consult and to be defended by a legal 
practitioner-Not to be denied. 
·Need for balance between law enforcement on one hand and the 
protection of citizen from the oppression and injustice at the hand of law E · 
enforcement machinery on the othei-Effective enforcement of the fundamen' 
ta/ rights-Requirements to be followed in all cases of 01Test laid down in 
addition to the rights of the OITested persons found in various police mar'.ia/s. 
The appellant, a young man, detained by the police authorities on 
the pretext of making some inquiries in a ease, was assured to be 
released after making inquiries. Being apprehensive of the intention of 
the authorities, appellant's _brother made several efforts to know the 
whereabouts of the appellant bot appellant could not be located. How-
ever, it was learnt that appellant was in illegal police custody. So the 
appellant's brother made enquiries about the well being of the appellant 
but it was found that the appellant had been taken to some undisclosed 
destination. Hence this writ petition praying for the release of the 
appellant. 
Disposing the petition, this Court 
661 
F 
G 
H 
662 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD : 1. The law of arrest is one of balancing individual rights, 
B 
liberties and privileges, on the one hand and individual duties, ol>ligations 
and responsibilities on the others; of weighing and balancing the rights, 
liberties and privileges of the single individual and those of individuals 
collectively, of simply deciding what is wanted and where to put the weigjlt 
and the emphasis; of deciding which comes first, the criminal or society, 
the law violator or the law abider. No arrest can be made merely beca•1se 
it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to 
arrest is one thing, the justification for the exercise of it is quite anothu. 
The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power 
to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock up of a· person can caU1se 
C incalculable harm to the reputation and self esteem of a person. No arms! 
can be made in a routine manner on a mere a!legation of commission of 
an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for police officer in 
the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and 
perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a 
D reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuine· 
ness and bonafide of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to lhe 
person's complicity and even so, as to the need to effect arrest. Denyin1~ a 
person of his liberty is a serious matter. The recommendations of lhe 
police commission merely reflect the con•titutional concomitants of the 
fundamental rights to personal liberty and freedom. [665·D·E, 670-E·G] 
E 
2. A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of com· 
plicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in 1the 
opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and 
justified. Except in heinous offences, an arrest must be avoided If a police 
F 
officer issues notice to person to attend the Station House and not to leave 
station without permission. [670-H, 671-A] 
3.1 The above rights are inherent in Art. 21 and Art.22(1) of 1tbe 
Constitution and require to be recognized and scrupulously protected.'f<or 
effective enforcement of these fundamental rights, the following directives 
G are issued. [671-D] 
3.2. An arrested person being held in custody is entitled if he so 
requests to have one friend, relative or other person who is known to him 
or likely to take an interest in his welfare, told as far as is practicable 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.