Police officer who fails to furnish written grounds of arrest must face departmental inquiry: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that when police seek to re-arrest an accused released due to their failure to furnish written grounds of arrest, the investigation must be transferred to another officer and a departmental inquiry initiated against the officers responsible for failing to furnish the grounds of arrest [Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab].

A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar reiterated that a failure to furnish written grounds of arrest violates Article 22(1) of the Constitution and renders the arrest illegal. Consequently, any accused arrested without such grounds being furnished must be released from illegal and unconstitutional detention, the Court held.

The Bench clarified that such a release does not permanently protect the accused from arrest in the same case. However, if the investigating agency still requires the accused’s custody, it must first furnish the written grounds of arrest and obtain permission from the concerned magistrate.

The Bench added that the custody application must explain why the grounds were not supplied at the time of the initial arrest and why custodial interrogation is necessary.

“Once there is a breach of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, the power to re-arrest the accused must not be left to the discretion of the very same authority who had violated the said provision of the Constitution. It must have the judicial imprimatur,” the Court further said.

The magistrate may permit re-arrest only after being satisfied that the grounds could not initially be supplied for bona fide reasons, that they were furnished after the accused’s release and that re-arrest is necessary, the Court held.

While reaffirming the procedure laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, the Court introduced additional safeguards governing any attempt to secure the accused’s custody again.

The Bench directed that the custody application must carry the endorsement of the investigating officer’s immediate superior. The superior officer must then transfer the investigation to another officer and order a departmental inquiry into the lapse, the Court added.

“On the administrative side, the superior authority when presented with the application seeking his endorsement for custody of the accused who has been released for violation of Article 22(1) shall hand over the investigation of the case to another officer, further directing departmental enquiry for such a serious lapse. If the enquiry culminates in adverse finding against the erring police officer(s), it would entail departmental action with entry in the service book of such officer(s),” the judgment stated.

The Court made the observation in a case that arose from an FIR registered against Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol in Punjab for allegedly sexually assaulting a minor girl.

Deol was arrested on May 17 and produced before a magistrate more than 24 hours later. Finding that he had not been furnished with written grounds of arrest, the magistrate declared the arrest illegal and ordered his immediate release.

The magistrate, however, allowed the police to seek his custody afresh after complying with the law.

Deol then approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking protection from re-arrest. The High Court rejected his plea, holding that the illegality of his initial arrest did not give him blanket immunity from a subsequent arrest made in accordance with law.

He challenged the High Court’s ruling before the Supreme Court.

The top court relied on its judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, which held that failure to furnish written grounds of arrest renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal. It further ruled that if the police later seek the accused’s custody, they must first furnish the grounds and approach the magistrate, explaining the earlier lapse and the need for custody.

The Court strengthened these safeguards by requiring the custody application to be endorsed by the investigating officer’s immediate superior and directing the transfer of the investigation and a departmental inquiry.

The Court emphasised that a violation of constitutional safeguards must be dealt with strictly, irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence alleged against the accused.

“Violation of the Constitution or a constitutional provision cannot be countenanced. It has to be dealt with strictly. It is not dependent on the nature or gravity of the offence, encompassing within its sweep all offences. It cannot be interpreted in a restrictive manner,” the Court said.

The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order as well as the magistrate’s observations permitting the investigating agency to proceed against Deol.

It held that if the police still considered Deol’s custodial interrogation necessary, they would have to follow the procedure prescribed in Mihir Rajesh Shah and the additional safeguards laid down in the present judgment.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the allegations against Deol.

It also directed that the judgment be circulated to the Directors General of Police of all States and Union Territories, the Registrars General of all High Courts and the Directors of State Judicial Academies.

[Read Judgment]