SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(SC) 478

S. MOHAN, A. S. ANAND, M. N. VENKATACHALIAH
Joginder Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
A.S.PUNDIR, L.R.SINGH, Mohd.Yunus Malik

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The judgment emphasizes that arrest cannot be routine or based only on suspicion; there must be reasonable justification demonstrating necessity. (!) (!) - It articulates the right of an arrested person to have a friend/relative or known person informed of the arrest and to consult privately with a lawyer; requires informing the arrested person of this right and recording who was informed. (!) (!) (!) - It discusses balancing individual rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) with societal needs, referencing the need for guidelines to limit unnecessary arrests and to justify detention under specified criteria. (!) (!) (!)

How to ensure arrest is justified and not merely on suspicion of complicity?

What is the right of an arrested person to be informed and consulted, and who must be informed about the arrest?

What guidelines should police follow to balance individual liberty with effective law enforcement in arrests?


ORDER

This is a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is a young man of 28 years of age who has completed his LL. B. and has enrolled himself as an advocate. The Senior Superientendent of Police, Ghaziabad, respondent No.4 called the petitioner in his office for making enquiries in some case. The petitioner on 7-1-1994 at about 10 Oclock appeared personally along with his brothers Sri Mangeram Choudhary, Nahar Singh Yadav, Harinder Singh Tewatia, Amar Singh and others before the respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 kept the petitioner in his custody. When the brother of the petitioner made enquiries about .the petitioner, he was told that the petitioner will be set free in the evening after making some enquiries in connection with a case.

2. On 7-1-1994 at about 12-55 p.m., the brother of the petitioner being apprehensive of the intentions of respondent No. 4, sent a telegram to the Chief Minister of U. P. apprehending his brothers implication in some criminal case and also further apprehending the petitioner being shot dead in fake encounter.

3. In spite of the frequent enquiries, the whereabouts of the petitioner could not be located. On the evening of 7
























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top