Arrests can be humiliating, cops and courts must be cautious: HC
Observing that an arrest curtails the ‘liberty’ of an individual, the Bombay High Court recently asked the Maharashtra police and the subordinate courts to be ‘cautious’ while issuing process to arrest any person. The HC accordingly quashed a ‘non-bailable’ warrant issued by a Magistrate in Vasai against a man.
A single-judge bench of Justice Anant Badar said, “Arrest cannot be made in a routine manner and without there being any cause. It must be noted that arrest curtails the liberty of an individual apart from violating his fundamental right as envisaged by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The bench further noted the fact that a person, who is arrested, also faces humiliation in the society.
“It (arrest) brings humiliation and curtails freedom of an individual, therefore, great care is required to be taken while ordering arrest of an individual. Instead of adopting coercive method for securing presence, ends of justice would serve, if the individual is directed to appear before by issuing bailable warrant at the first instance,” Justice Badar added.
The court was hearing a plea filed by Rakeshkumar Wadhavan seeking quashing of a NBW issued against him by a Magistrate in Vasai, in June this year. He along with others, was booked by the Mandvi Police, under charges of fraud and cheating.
Wadhavan, who was undergoing some treatment in Delhi at the relevant time, informed Justice Badar that the summons issued by the Magistrate, were not served in his presence, as the same were sent to his office. He further informed that having received the summons, he appeared before the Magistrate, on the very next day through his advocate, however, the court issued NBW against him. He also informed that he had cooperated in the probe and that even the Investigation Officer, did not intended to arrest him, during the initial probe.
Having considered the submissions advanced, Justice Badar noted, “The fact that the applicant (Wadhawan) was not arrested during the course of investigation, must be noted. Further, it is pertinent to note that he had shown diligence by responding to the summons received belatedly in his office by deputing his advocate before the Court. Not only that, he has also applied for keeping the NBW in abeyance because he was suffering from ailment and was advised rest.”
“The impugned order (of NBW), prima facie, demonstrate that no proper care was taken in order to secure presence of the applicant before the Court for facing the trial and particularly when it was the very first date of appearance before the trial Court. Thus, the said order deserves to be quashed and set aside,” Justice Badar said.