Back
Warns Police, Magistrates on Arrests in Offences Up to Seven Years
The has delivered a stern warning to police authorities and Judicial Officers, directing them to follow guidelines strictly when dealing with arrests and remands in offences punishable with up to seven years' imprisonment. The caution came as the Court finally disposed of a petition filed on behalf of a juvenile who was repeatedly sent to judicial custody in a theft case.
A Case of Illegal Detention
The petition, filed by the juvenile's stepsister, challenged his arrest and remand in connection with an FIR lodged under (maximum punishment three years). After the arrest, (maximum punishment five years) was added. Despite the low gravity of the offences, the petitioner—then 17 years old—was arrested and remanded to judicial custody multiple times without any verification of his age or assessment of the necessity of arrest.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant observed that the remand orders were "absolutely " and that the concerned Magistrate had not applied his judicial mind. The Court noted that even after the petition was filed, a remand order was passed on , granting custody up to —a chronological impossibility that underscored the lack of scrutiny.
Mandate Flouted
The High Court relied heavily on the 's decisions in and , which mandate that arrests in offences punishable up to seven years should be an exception, not the rule. Police must issue a notice under instead of making an arrest, and Magistrates must not grant remand mechanically without verifying the legality of the arrest and compliance with statutory safeguards.
In this case, the police officers could not explain why the juvenile was arrested. The arrest memo stated that he was
"not cooperating in the investigation,"
yet no effort was made to approach his family or take a bond. The Court found that the officers had "flouted and violated" the directions of the Apex Court as well as the provisions of
.
Police Officers Face Inquiry
On , the Court was informed that a had been issued to the Investigating Officer, Sub-Inspector Anil Kumar Singh, proposing a minor punishment of censure entry. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (East), Lucknow, had initiated this action. The Court, while accepting the development, directed that the final order be passed after considering the officer's explanation. It also noted that the investigation against the petitioner was practically complete, and a had been filed against the other accused.
Judicial Officers Apologise
The Judicial Officers who had granted the remands filed personal affidavits, offering unconditional apologies and stating that their mistakes were
and unintentional. The High Court accepted these apologies but issued a clear caution:
"they shall remain careful in allowing such applications or other applications and their
should be reflected in such orders."
The Court clarified that this caution would not be treated as an adverse remark in their service records.
Final Directions
Disposing of the petition, the Court reiterated that the guidelines in
Satender Kumar Antil
and
Arnesh Kumar
must be followed "
" by police authorities. Judicial Officers must carefully examine the reasons for seeking remand and ensure that their orders reflect judicial application. The Court further directed that any plea of
must be considered strictly in accordance with law.
"Any careless or callous approach of either Police Officers or Judicial Officers may not be taken lightly,"
the Bench warned, adding that
, if established, would be dealt with seriously.
The Court also expressed the expectation that the investigation against the petitioner would be completed and a police report filed strictly in accordance with law.
