New Delhi: Supreme court On Monday, the Center urged the Center to frame a law to prevent investigative agencies from arresting accused unnecessarily, saying indiscriminate arrest reflects a colonial mindset and creates the impression of a “police state”. Is.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundaresh appealed to the Center to enact a new law to streamline the process of granting bail, saying there was a “pressure need” for it and ruled that regular bail of an accused The application can normally be decided within two weeks and anticipatory bail within six weeks. It directed all the states and union territories to ensure strict compliance of sections 41 and 41A crpc On the procedure to be followed before arresting people.
“Prisons in India are flooded with undertrials. The data presented to us show that more than two-thirds of prisons are undertrials. Most of this category of prisoners may not even need to be arrested despite registration. are being charged with a cognizable offence, offenses punishable by a term of seven years or less. They are not only poor and illiterate but also include women. Thus, many of them have been convicted of an inherited crime. culture. As observed by this court, it certainly reflects the mindset of colonial India on the part of the investigating agency, notwithstanding the fact that to arrest is a drastic measure that results in loss of independence, and thus should be used sparingly. In a democracy, it can never come that it is a police state because the two are conceptually opposite to each other.”
The bench observed that the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” is the criterion of Article 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Constitution. Constitution Which has been held repeatedly by the Supreme Court and the presumption of innocence is a universal principle.
“Even for a cognizable offence, arrest is not mandatory as may be seen from the mandate of this provision. If the officer is satisfied that a person has committed a cognizable offence, he shall be punished with imprisonment. which may be less than seven years, or which may extend to the said period, with or without fine, may be arrested if he is satisfied that the person has committed the offense or has reason to suspect, and arrest is required. To prevent the commission of any further offence, for proper investigation, and to prevent him from disappearing or tampering with the evidence. To prevent any inducement, threat or intimidation to such person Promise any person that he will prevent him from disclosing the said facts to a court or a police officer.
The court held that a police officer is bound to record the reasons for arrest in writing and both the elements “reason to believe” and “satisfaction for arrest” are mandatory and to be recorded by him accordingly. The bench lamented that the provisions and the earlier order of the apex court were not being followed by the agencies.
“We also expect that the courts may come down heavily on the officers making arrests without proper compliance of Section 41 and Section 41A. We express our hope that the investigating agencies have laid down the law in the Arnesh Kumar (Supra) case.” The test of presumption of innocence should be exercised, and the safeguards provided under section 41, since the arrest is not mandatory. If discretion is exercised to effectuate such arrest then there will be procedural compliance,” it said.
FacebookTwitterinstagramKu APPyoutube