investigation and arrest should be fair
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3816 OF 2024
@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 11023 OF 2024
ARVIND KEJRIWAL APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3817 OF 2024
@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 10991 OF 2024
J U D G M E N T
UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
28. In the case of Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma
Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)2
, this Court emphasized that investigation
must be fair and effective. Investigation should be conducted in a
manner so as to draw a just balance between a citizens right
under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the
expansive power of the police to make investigation. Concept of
fair investigation and fair trial are concomitant to preservation of
2 (2010) 6 SCC 1
18
the fundamental right of the accused under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
29. This Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of
Bihar3
, while examining the provisions of Sections 41 and 41A
Cr.P.C. observed that arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom
and cast scars forever. This Court, while emphasizing the need to
sensitize the police against highhanded arrest, deprecated the
attitude to arrest first and then to proceed with the rest. While
emphasizing that police officers should not arrest the accused
unnecessarily and that the Magistrate should not authorize
detention casually and mechanically, this Court observed as
follows:
5. Arrest brings humiliation, curtails
freedom and casts scars forever. Lawmakers
know it so also the police. There is a battle
between the lawmakers and the police and it
seems that the police has not learnt its lesson:
the lesson implicit and embodied in CrPC. It
has not come out of its colonial image despite
six decades of Independence, it is largely
considered as a tool of harassment, oppression
and surely not considered a friend of public.
The need for caution in exercising the drastic
3 (2014) 8 SCC 273
19
power of arrest has been emphasized time and
again by the courts but has not yielded desired
result. Power to arrest greatly contributes to
its arrogance so also the failure of the
Magistracy to check it. Not only this, the power
of arrest is one of the lucrative sources of
police corruption. The attitude to arrest first
and then proceed with the rest is despicable. It
has become a handy tool to the police officers
who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motive.
30. Again in the case of Mohd. Zubair Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi)4
, a threeJudge Bench of this Court once again emphasized
that the existence of the power of arrest must be distinguished
from the exercise of the power of arrest. The exercise of the power
of arrest must be pursued sparingly. This Court reiterated the
role of the courts in protecting personal liberty and ensuring that
investigations are not used as a tool of harassment. Referring to
its earlier decision in Arnab Ranjan Goswami Vs. Union of India5
,
this Court observed that the courts should be alive to both ends
of the spectrum: the need to ensure proper enforcement of
criminal law on the one hand and the need to ensure that the
law does not become a ruse for targeted harassment on the other
4 (2022) SCC Online SC 897
5 (2020) 14 SCC 12
20
hand. Courts must ensure that they continue to remain the first
line of defence against the deprivation of liberty of the citizens.
Deprivation of liberty even for a single day is one day too many.