This Full Bench is constituted to consider the following questions:

(1) Whether the arrest of an accused is a must if cognizable offence is disclosed in the F. I. R. or in a criminal complaint;

(2) Whether the High Court can direct the subordinate Courts to decide the Bail Application on the same day it is filed; and

(3) Whether the case Dr. Vinod Narain v. State of U. P. , Writ Petition No. 3643 of 1992 reported in 1995 (1) JIC 433 (All) : 1995 (32) A. C. C. 375 has been correctly decided by the five Judge full Bench of this court.

2. In the case of Dr. Vinod Narain (Writ Petition No. 3643 of 1992) it was held: "for the reasons recorded separately this Full Bench unanimously holds that in exercise of power under Article 220 of the Constitution, while issuing direction and command to the Magistrate or the Court of Sessions as the case may be, to consider the bail application time schedule for concluding the bail proceedings cannot be fixed. Consequently, the decision rendered in Dr. Hidayat Hussain Khan v. State of U. P. , 1992 JIC 589 (All) : 1992 Crl. L. J. 3534, is overruled and the decision rendered in Writ Petition No. 919 of 1992, Noor Mohd. v. State of U. P. and others, is upheld. "

3. In the same judgment Honble Palok Basu, J. observed (in paragraph 183):

"once disclosure of cognizable offence is made, arrest of the accused or suspect is a "must" for there is no other known method by which he may be brought before the Court for trial. The words "if necessary" in Section-157 may at best make available a discretion to an investigating officer in a given case to defer arresting an accused or suspect if there is reasonable doubt about his identity. It is not possible to subscribe to the view that the word `arrest is made discretionary or that any other connotation may be extendable than what is noted in the preceding lines. "

4. We have heard Shri V. P. Srivastava, Shri S. P. S. Raghav, Shri Satish Trivedi, Shri Viresh Mishra, Shri D. S. Mishra and Pt. P. N. Misra, learned Advocates at length and the learned Government Advocate for the State and have perused the judgment of the Full Bench passed in Writ Petition No. 3643 of 1992 Dr. Vinod Narain v. State of U. P. , reported in 1995 (1) JIC 433 (All ).

5. First we shall consider the question whether the arrest of the accused is a must if a cognizable offence is disclosed in the F. I. R. or in the complaint.

6. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees to every man, be he a citizen or a foreigner, that he shall not be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Article 21 states:

"no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. "

7. It may be mentioned that in A. K. Gopalan v. Union of India, AIR 1950 SC 27, it was held that to deprive a person of life or liberty all that was required was that the provisions of the I. P. C. and Cr. P. C. or some Statute are to be followed, but it was not necessary that those provisions must be reasonable, fair and just. In other words, it was held in Gopalans case (supra) that Articles 21 and 19 are mutually exclusive, and hence the reasonability test in Article 19 of the Constitution is not to be applied when testing a law on the anvil of Article 21. Thus Article 21 was construed in Gopalans case only as a guarantee against executive action unsupported by statutory law.

8. However, subsequently in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, a Seven Judge Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court overruled the earlier decision in A. K. . Gopalans case (supra) and held that the procedure to deprive a person of life or liberty must be fair, reasonable and just. Thus the expression "procedure established by law" in Article 21 has been judicially construed as meaning a procedure which is reasonable, fair and just. Subsequent to Maneka Gandhis case in a series of decisions the Supreme Court has c