1. Judgments on:
Accused Persons’ Rights
on Arrest
Debashis
HRLN, Kolkata

2. Joginder Kumar’s case
(1994) 4 SCC 260
• The power to arrest without a warrant
should be exercised only after a
reasonable satisfaction is reached, after
some investigation, as to the genuineness
and bona fides of a complaint and a
reasonable belief as to both the person’s
complicity as well as the need to effect
arrest.

3. Joginder Kumar’s case
(1994) 4 SCC 260
• Except in heinous offences, an arrest must
be avoided if a police officer issues notice
to the person to attend the police station
and not leave the station without
permission

4. Prem Shanker Shukla’s Case
(1980) 3 SCC 526
• Right not to be handcuffed or chained or
roped
• Also in Citizen for Democracy v. State of
Assam [(1995) 3 SCC 743]

5. D.K. Basu’s case
AIR 1997 SC 610
• Apart from informing the person arrested
of the above rights, the police should also
inform him of his right to consult and be
defended by a lawyer of his choice.
• He should also be informed that he is
entitled to free legal aid at state expense

6. Prabha Dutt’s Case
(1982) 1 SCC 1
• Right of Media persons to interview an
arrestee in custody

7. Sheela Barse’s Case
(1983) 2 SCC 96
• Whenever a person is arrested by the
police and taken to the police lock up, the
police will immediately give an intimation
of the fact of such arrest to the nearest
Legal Aid Committee and such Legal Aid
Committee will take immediate steps for
the purpose of providing legal assistance
to the arrested person at State cost

8. Sheela Barse’s Case
(1983) 2 SCC 96
• Preferably a lady Judge, shall make
surprise visits to police lock ups in the city
periodically with a view to providing the
arrested persons an opportunity to air their
grievances and ascertaining the conditions
in the police lock ups and whether the
requisite facilities are being provided and
the provisions of law are being observed

9. Sheela Barse’s Case
(1983) 2 SCC 96
• As soon as a person is arrested, the police
must immediately obtain the name of any
relative or friend and should get in touch
with such relative or friend and inform him
about the arrest

10. Shobharam’ Case
AIR 1966 SC 1910
• The right to counsel applies at all custodial
interrogations and at all critical stages of a
prosecution after formal proceedings have
begun. These stages include post-
indictment interrogations, arraignment,
guilty plea, and trial.

11. Khatri & Ors -Vs.- Bihar
(1981) 1 SCC 627
• Decisions of the court made without the
accused having been provided a lawyer
are not valid
• Accused to be informed by Court of right
to free legal aid at State cost
• Accused is entitled to compensation for
violation

12. Nandini Satpathy’s Case
(1978) 2 SCC 424
• The right to consult an advocate of his choice
shall not be denied to any person who is
arrested.
• The spirit and sense of Article 22(1) is that it is
fundamental to' the rule of law that the services
of a lawyer shall be available for consultation to
any accused person under circumstances of
near custodial interrogation.
• Moreover, the observance of the right against
self-incrimination is best promoted by conceding
to the accused the right to consult a-legal
practitioner of his choice.

13. Nandini Satpathy’s Case
(1978) 2 SCC 424
• Lawyer's presence is a constitutional claim
in some circumstances in, our country
also, and, in the context of Article 20(3), is
an assurance of awareness and
observance of the right to silence

14. Nandini Satpathy’s Case
(1978) 2 SCC 424
• Not that a lawyer's presence is a panacea for all
problems of involuntary self-crimination, for he cannot
supply answers or whisper hints or otherwise interfere
with the course of questioning except to intercept where
intimidatory tactics are tried, caution his client where
incrimination is attempted and insist on questions and
answers being noted where objections are not otherwise
fully appreciated.
• He cannot harangue the police but may help his client
and complain on his behalf, although his very presence
will ordinarily remove the implicit menace of a police
station

15. Nandini Satpathy’s Case
(1978) 2 SCC 424
• “…We realize that the presence of a lawyer is
asking for the moon in many cases until a public
defender system becomes ubiquitous...”
• The police need not wait more than for a
reasonable time for an advocate's arrival. But
they must invariably warn-and record that fact
about the right to silence against self-
incrimination; and where the accused is literate
take his written acknowledgement

16. Smt. Selvi & Ors Vs. Karnataka
(2010) 7 SCC 263
• Article 20(3) not only a trial right but its
protection extends to the stage of investigation
also
• Compulsory involuntary administration of the
Narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and the
Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP)
violates the `right against self-incrimination'
enumerated in Article 20(3) of the Constitution
as the subject does not exercise conscious
control over the responses during the
administration of the test.

17. CHRI Vs. State of West Bengal
W.P. 56 of 2013 – Calcutta HC
• A panel of Legal Aid Lawyers should be
present in each Court hearing remand
applications, so as to ensure that
arrestees who cannot afford a defence
lawyer is provided with a lawyer at State’s
cost right from the date of first production

18. Bal Bahadur Vs. Customs Officer
Crl. A. No. 12/2009 – Delhi HC
• To ensure quality legal aid –
Separate panel of trial court lawyers comprising
senior lawyers of not less than 10 years or more
experience and associate lawyers of not less
than five years' to defend the indigent accused
facing trial for commission of offences
punishable with sentence of seven years and
more