Arrest should be last option for police: HC

PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad high court has held that arrest should be the last option for the police and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative or his custodial interrogation is required. “Irrational and indiscriminate arrests are a gross violation of human rights,” the court said on May 28. The report suggested that, by and large, nearly 60% of the arrests were either unnecessary or unjustified.

The Allahabad high court has held that arrest should be the last option for the police and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative or his custodial interrogation is required.

“Irrational and indiscriminate arrests are a gross violation of human rights,” the court said on May 28.

While granting anticipatory bail to one Jugendra Singh, a police constable, Justice Siddharth quoted the case of Joginder Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh where the Supreme Court has referred to the third report of the National Police Commission (NCP), wherein it is mentioned that arrests by the police in India are one of the chief sources of corruption in the police.

The report suggested that, by and large, nearly 60% of the arrests were either unnecessary or unjustified and that such police action accounted for 43.2% expenditure of the jails.

“Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative. According to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the arrest of an accused should be made,” the apex court added in the case of Joginder Kumar.

There was an allegation against the applicant that he was taking money from the passing trucks. His counsel submitted that there was no forensic report nor recovery had been made from the applicant. Investigation is still underway. The applicant has definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time, his counsel said.

The state counsel contended that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, he was not entiunjustified tled to grant of anticipatory bail.

“The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted,” the state counsel added.

However, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and applicant’s antecedents and also the second surge in the cases of novel coronavirus and possibility of further surge of the pandemic, the court directed that the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail for limited period in this case considering the exceptions considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi).

The application was filed with a request to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant Jugendra Singh against whom an FIR was registered under Sections 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Delhi Gate police station in Aligarh district of western Uttar Pradesh.