The Supreme Court held that arrest should not be treated as the default course of action in cases involving offences punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The court clarified that the law mandates issuance of a notice to the accused to appear before the investigating officer, and arrest can be made only in exceptional circumstances when it is genuinely necessary and justified by reasons recorded in writing.
The court examined the scheme of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and emphasised that the power of arrest is discretionary and must be exercised with restraint. It observed that the legislature has consciously provided safeguards to prevent unnecessary arrests in less serious offences, recognising the importance of personal liberty and the adverse consequences of mechanical arrests. The court stated that the mere fact that an offence is cognizable and punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years does not automatically justify arrest.
The Supreme Court explained that the law requires the police to first issue a notice directing the accused to appear and cooperate with the investigation. If the accused complies with such notice, arrest should ordinarily not be made. Arrest can be resorted to only if the police officer forms a reasoned belief that custody is necessary for specific purposes such as preventing further offences, ensuring a fair and proper investigation, preventing tampering with evidence, protecting witnesses, or securing the presence of the accused before the court. These reasons must be objective and must be recorded in writing.
The court further held that arrest should be a measure of last resort and not a routine step in investigation. It cautioned against the tendency to equate registration of a case with the immediate need to arrest the accused, noting that such an approach undermines the balance between effective investigation and protection of individual liberty. The court reiterated that liberty cannot be curtailed merely on the basis of allegations when the law provides alternative mechanisms to secure cooperation in investigation.
The Supreme Court also observed that compliance with a notice to appear demonstrates willingness of the accused to cooperate, and in such circumstances, arrest without compelling justification would be contrary to the statutory framework. It underlined that arrest after issuance and compliance with notice can be made only when subsequent circumstances arise that make custody unavoidable, and even then, the reasons must be clearly documented.
By interpreting the provisions governing arrest in this manner, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle that criminal procedure must operate in a manner that is fair, reasonable, and proportionate. The judgment underscores that safeguarding personal liberty is a core objective of procedural law and that unnecessary arrests not only violate individual rights but also burden the criminal justice system.
The ruling serves as a clear reminder to investigating agencies that arrest is an exception and not the rule in offences punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years, and that strict adherence to the statutory safeguards is mandatory.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.