SRI EMAN ABBAS TOPIWALA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court: Karnataka High Court
Decided on: 10-04-2026

<div> <br /> 1<br /> <b>R</b> <b> </b><br /> <b>Reserved on : 23.03.2026 </b><br /> <b>Pronounced on : 10.04.2026 </b> <b> </b><br /> <br /> IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU <br /> <br /> TH<br /> DATED THIS THE 10 DAY OF APRIL, 2026 <br /> <br /> BEFORE <br /> <br /> THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA <br /> <br /> CRIMINAL PETITION No.3020 OF 2026 <br /> <br /> <b>BETWEEN: </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> SRI EMAN ABBAS TOPIWALA <br /> AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS <br /> S/O MOHAMMED ABBAS HUSEIN AKI TOPIWALA<br /> ND<br /> R/A: 207, 2 FLOOR <br /> GITANJALI LAKE VIEW APARTMENT <br /> BENIGANAHALLI, KRISHNARAJAPURAM R S <br /> BENGALURU – 560 016. <br /> ... PETITIONER <br /> (BY SRI ABHIMANYU DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE) <br /> <br /> <b>AND: </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> THE STATE OF KARNATAKA <br /> BY DEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION<br /> REPRESENTED BY SPP <br /> HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. <br /> ... RESPONDENT <br /> <br /> (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP ) <br /> <br /> THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF <br /> CR.P.C.,/ SECTION 528 OF THE BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH <br /> THE FIR, COMPLIANT, CHARGE SHEET AND ENTIRETY OF <br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 2<br /> PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.NO.1182/2025 FOR OFFENCES P/U/S <br /> 20(b), 22(a), 27(B), 25 OF NDPS ACT, 1985 AND SEC.292, 296, <br /> 3(5), 111(2) OF BNS, 2023 PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF THE <br /> VIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE <br /> FOR NDPS CASES AT BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGLAURU <br /> IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. <br /> <br /> <br /> THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND <br /> RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.03.2026, COMING ON FOR <br /> PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- <br /> CORAM: <b>THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA</b><br /> <br /> <b>CAV ORDER </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <br /> The petitioner/accused No.12 in Special Case No.1182 of <br /> 2025 is before the Court seeking the following prayer: <br /> <b> </b><br /> “a. Call for the records in the Special Case No.1182 of 2025 <br /> for offences punishable under Section 20(b), 22(a), 27(B) <br /> of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, <br /> 1985 and 292, 296 3(5) and 111(2) of the Bharatiya <br /> Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending before the Court of the VIII <br /> Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge <br /> for NDPS Cases at Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. <br /> <br /> b. Quash the FIR, complaint, charge sheet and entirety of <br /> proceedings in Special Case No.1182/2025 for offences <br /> punishable under Section 20(b), 22(a), 27(B) 25 of the <br /> Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 <br /> and 292, 296, 3(5) and 111(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya <br /> Sanhita, 2023 pending before the Court of the VIII <br /> Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge <br /> for NDPS Cases at Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru <br /> insofar as the petitioners are concerned. <br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 3<br /> c. Grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit <br /> to grant in facts and circumstances of the case.” <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Heard Sri Abhimanyu Devaiah, learned counsel appearing <br /> for the petitioner and Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State <br /> Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. <br /> <br /> <br /> 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: - <br /> <br /> 3.1. A <i>suo motu </i> complaint is registered before the <br /> Devanahalli Police Station upon receipt and verification of credible <br /> information that accused No.1 has organized a birthday celebration <br /> without obtaining permission from the jurisdictional authority. The <br /> event is said to have been conducted at a mansion known as <br /> “Ellavoma House” situated near MVM School of Kannamangala <br /> Road, which comes within the jurisdiction of Devanahalli Police <br /> Station. The gathering is said to have taken place between 9.30 <br /> p.m. on 24-04-2025 and lasted up to 7.15 a.m. on 25-05-2025. <br /> Approximately, 30 to 35 persons are said to have gathered at the <br /> venue and were allegedly consuming intoxicating substance and <br /> alcohol. They were also engaged in loud dancing to music, thereby <br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 4<br /> disturbing peace and tranquility of the locality. The said gathering <br /> was neither sanctioned nor supported with any lawful permission <br /> and, therefore, did constitute act of illegality and unauthorized <br /> assembly. Upon receipt of the said information, witness No.48 and <br /> another Sub-Inspector of Devanahalli Police Station submitted a <br /> report to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Devanahalli Police <br /> Station. On perusal of the said report, the Assistant Commissioner <br /> of Police authorized the Police to conduct a raid, search and take <br /> appropriate action. <br /> <br /> <br /> 3.2. On 25-05-2025, based upon the said <br /> report/authorization, a crime comes to be registered in Crime No.68 <br /> of 2025 for offences punishable under Sections 20(b), 22(a) and <br /> 27(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 <br /> (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and Sections 292, 296 <br /> and 3(5) of the BNS, alleging that the rave party organizers had <br /> gathered in the said place and have breached the law. No person <br /> was named in the FIR, as it was against unknown persons. The <br /> Police conduct a search, the people gathering there were alleged to <br /> be consuming illicit substance and playing loud music. Upon <br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 5<br /> checking the place, the informant Police found 25 to 30 people <br /> gathered at the party and were selling and consuming cocaine, <br /> ganja and other narcotic substances. <br /> <br /> 3.3. The aforesaid complaint which had become a FIR is <br /> transmitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate at 7.15 a.m. on 25-05-<br /> 2025. The jurisdictional Magistrate permits conduct of search and <br /> seizure of narcotic substances. Upon authorization, a team <br /> comprising of a police personnel, two independent witnesses and 5 <br /> panch witnesses proceeded to raid the venue in the early morning <br /> hours. The raid was conducted under the supervision of Assistant <br /> Commissioner of Police. At about 2.30 p.m. on 25-05-2025, the <br /> respondent Police along with the medical officer collected blood <br /> samples from all including the petitioner and marked it as Article <br /> Nos. 59 and 60 for forwarding it to the Forensic Science Laboratory. <br /> <br /> 3.4. On 25-05-2025 the Police arrest the petitioner/accused <br /> No.12 along with others and released her on the same day, as she <br /> was alleged of consumption of illicit liquor. A Police notice under <br /> Section 67 of the BNSS was issued to the petitioner for questioning <br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 6<br /> and the petitioner was directed to be present before the Police <br /> Station on 27-05-2025 at 10.30 a.m. The blood and urine samples <br /> of all the accused persons were collected, sealed and forwarded to <br /> the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Madiwala, Bangalore. <br /> Investigation continued. Few of other accused were also taken into <br /> custody. The Forensic Science Laboratory report is submitted on <br /> 24-06-2025 which depict that Articles 59 and 60, blood and urine <br /> samples of the petitioner tested positive for consumption of <br /> cocaine. <br /> <br /> 3.5. A coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition <br /> No.8538 of 2025 granted stay of further investigation in Crime <br /> No.68 of 2025 insofar as accused No.6 was concerned who was also <br /> charged of consumption of banned substance. The Police continued <br /> the investigation and file their final report before the jurisdictional <br /> Court for the afore-quoted offences. The petitioner has been <br /> charge sheeted for the offences under Section 27(b) of the NDPS <br /> Act and Sections 292, 296 and 3(5) of the BNS. The concerned <br /> Court takes cognizance of the offence on 31-12-2025 again for the <br /> afore-quoted offences particularly against the petitioner/accused <br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 7<br /> No.12 and registers Special Case No.1182 of 2025. The petitioner <br /> after taking of cognizance and issuance of summons is before the <br /> Court in the subject petition, seeking quashment of the charge <br /> sheet and entire proceedings against her. <br /> <br /> <b>SUBMISSIONS: </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>PETITIONER: </b><br /> <br /> 4.1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would <br /> submit that the petitioner was present in the gathering. Mere <br /> presence at a social event, in the absence of any participation in the <br /> alleged unlawful activity, would not attract liability under the Act. <br /> The charge sheet does not attribute any specific overt act against <br /> the petitioner. There is no recovery of contraband substance from <br /> her possession. The charge sheet is bereft of material, direct or <br /> proximate or having any nexus with the alleged offences. The <br /> petitioner was merely an attendee and had no conscious possession <br /> nor constructive possession. He would contend that the arrest was <br /> in violation of guidelines laid down in <b>D.K. BASU V. STATE OF </b><br /> <b>WEST BENGAL</b> which mandates that arrest must be accompanied <br /> by documentation including arrest memo, attestation of witnesses <br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 8<br /> and other mandatory factors. Arrest, according to the learned <br /> counsel, is <i>non est </i> in the eye of law. <br /> <br /> 4.2. The learned counsel would submit that Section 51 of the <br /> BNSS/53 of the earlier regime Cr.P.C. permits medical examination, <br /> including collection of blood and urine samples only after lawful <br /> arrest, subject to the prescribed procedural safeguards. In the case <br /> at hand, no material is placed to indicate lawful arrest. In the <br /> absence of arrest, the extraction of biological sample constitutes an <br /> unlawful and invasive act rendering the procedure illegal, <br /> unconstitutional and inadmissible in evidence. He would contend <br /> that this grave procedural and constitutional infirmity strikes at the <br /> root of the prosecution and renders continuation of proceedings <br /> against the petitioner, a manifest abuse of the process of law. <br /> <br /> <br /> <b>STATE</b> : <br /> <br /> 5. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor <br /> Sri B.N. Jagadeesha would refute the submissions to contend that <br /> the petitioner has been tested positive for cocaine. Hence, it is <br /> proof of consumption of the said narcotic drug. The petitioner was <br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 9<br /> arrested and then her blood and urine samples were taken. <br /> Therefore, there is no violation of Section 51 of the BNSS. The <br /> Forensic Science Laboratory report showing her sample testing <br /> positive to cocaine are valid. He would submit that all the <br /> submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot <br /> become a ground for quashment of proceedings, as the petitioner is <br /> already enlarged on bail. He would seek dismissal of the petition. <br /> <br /> <br /> 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions <br /> made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the <br /> material on record. In furtherance whereof, the following issues <br /> would arise for my consideration: <br /> <br /> <b>(i) </b> <b>Whether the arrest of the petitioner was lawful? </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>(ii) </b> <b>Whether the report pursuant to conduct of </b><br /> <b>medical examination under Section 51 of the </b><br /> <b>BNSS in the absence of such lawful arrest can be </b><br /> <b>relied upon to continue the prosecution against </b><br /> <b>the petitioner? </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>(iii) Whether the report of such medical examination </b><br /> <b>can be relied upon as proof of consumption? </b><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 10<br /> I proceed to consider the issues on their seriatim. <br /> <br /> <br /> <b>ISSUE NO.1: </b><br /> <br /> <b>Whether the arrest of the petitioner was lawful? </b><br /> <br /> <b>7. The power to arrest is not an unbridled prerogative, </b><br /> <b>but a solemn trust reposed in the hands of the State, one </b><br /> <b>that must be exercised with restrained responsibility and </b><br /> <b>scrupulous adherence to statutory safeguards. Where the </b><br /> <b>offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment of less </b><br /> <b>than 7 years, the law does not countenance a cavalier </b><br /> <b>deprivation of liberty. Instead, it mandates a calibrated </b><br /> <b>approach, one that privileges notice over custody, and </b><br /> <b>reason over impulse. With the said prelude the issue needs </b><br /> <b>consideration. </b><br /> <br /> 8. The petitioner is charged for offences under Sections 292, <br /> 296, 3(5) of the BNS and 27(b) of the Act, all of which are <br /> punishable with maximum punishment upto 7 years. The provisions <br /> read as follows: <br /> <b> </b><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 11<br /> <b>Sections 292, 296 of the BNS: </b><br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>otherwise provided for</th><th></th><th>.—Whoever commits a public</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>nuisance in any case not otherwise punishable by this Sanhita</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>shall be punished with fine which may extend to one thousand</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>rupees.</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <b>296. Obscene acts and songs</b> .—Whoever, to the <br /> annoyance of others,— <br /> <br /> ( <i>a</i> ) does any obscene act in any public place; or <br /> <br /> ( <i>b</i> ) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or <br /> words, in or near any public place, <br /> shall be punished with imprisonment of either <br /> description for a term which may extend to three months, or <br /> with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with <br /> both.” <br /> <br /> <br /> <b>Section 3(5) of the BNS: </b><br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>xplanations</th><th>. – (1) ….</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>…. …. ….</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>(5) When a criminal act is done by several persons in</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>done by him alone.”</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <b>Section 27(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic </b><br /> <b>Substances Act, 1985: </b><br /> ( <i>b</i> ) where the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance <br /> consumed is other than those specified in or under clause <br /> ( <i>a</i> ), with imprisonment for a term which may extend to <br /> six months, or with fine which may extend to ten <br /> thousand rupees, or with both.] <br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 12<br /> 9. <b> What is to be noticed here is, whether the arrest was </b><br /> <b>lawful considering all the offences against the petitioner are </b><br /> <b>the ones punishable with less than 7 years of imprisonment. </b><br /> <b>In cases where offences punishable with imprisonment is </b><br /> <b>less than 7 years, the accused cannot be arrested strictly. </b><br /> <b>Instead, a notice under Section 35 of the BNSS must be </b><br /> <b>served upon the accused. In the case against the petitioner, </b><br /> <b>before arresting her, she could be taken into custody only if </b><br /> <b>the conditions under Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS are met.</b> <br /> Therefore, it becomes necessary to notice Section 35 of the BNSS. <br /> It reads as follows: <br /> “ <b>35. When police may arrest without warrant</b> .—(1) <br /> Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and <br /> without a warrant, arrest any person— <br /> ( <i>a</i> ) who commits, in the presence of a police officer, a <br /> cognizable offence; or <br /> ( <i>b</i> ) against whom a reasonable complaint has been <br /> made, or credible information has been received, or a <br /> reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable <br /> offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be <br /> less than seven years or which may extend to seven years <br /> whether with or without fine, if the following conditions are <br /> satisfied, namely:— <br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 13<br /> ( <i>i</i> ) the police officer has reason to believe on the basis <br /> of such complaint, information, or suspicion that <br /> such person has committed the said offence; <br /> ( <i>ii</i> ) the police officer is satisfied that such arrest is <br /> necessary— <br /> ( <i>a</i> ) to prevent such person from committing any further <br /> offence; or <br /> ( <i>b</i> ) for proper investigation of the offence; or <br /> ( <i>c</i> ) to prevent such person from causing the evidence of <br /> the offence to disappear or tampering with such <br /> evidence in any manner; or <br /> ( <i>d</i> ) to prevent such person from making any <br /> inducement, threat or promise to any person <br /> acquainted with the facts of the case so as to <br /> dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court <br /> or to the police officer; or <br /> ( <i>e</i> ) as unless such person is arrested, his presence in the <br /> Court whenever required cannot be ensured, <br /> and the police officer shall record while making such <br /> arrest, his reasons in writing: <br /> Provided that a police officer shall, in all cases where the <br /> arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of this <br /> sub-section, record the reasons in writing for not making the <br /> arrest; or <br /> ( <i>c</i> ) against whom credible information has been received <br /> that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with <br /> imprisonment for a term which may extend to more than seven <br /> years whether with or without fine or with death sentence and <br /> the police officer has reason to believe on the basis of that <br /> information that such person has committed the said offence; or <br /> ( <i>d</i> ) who has been proclaimed as an offender either under <br /> this Sanhita or by order of the State Government; or <br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 14<br /> ( <i>e</i> ) in whose possession anything is found which may <br /> reasonably be suspected to be stolen property and who may <br /> reasonably be suspected of having committed an offence with <br /> reference to such thing; or <br /> ( <i>f</i> ) who obstructs a police officer while in the execution of <br /> his duty, or who has escaped, or attempts to escape, from <br /> lawful custody; or <br /> ( <i>g</i> ) who is reasonably suspected of being a deserter from <br /> any of the Armed Forces of the Union; or <br /> ( <i>h</i> ) who has been concerned in, or against whom a <br /> reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information <br /> has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his <br /> having been concerned in, any act committed at any place out <br /> of India which, if committed in India, would have been <br /> punishable as an offence, and for which he is, under any law <br /> relating to extradition, or otherwise, liable to be apprehended or <br /> detained in custody in India; or <br /> ( <i>i</i> ) who, being a released convict, commits a breach of <br /> any rule made under sub-section (5) of Section 394; or <br /> ( <i>j</i> ) for whose arrest any requisition, whether written or <br /> oral, has been received from another police officer, provided <br /> that the requisition specifies the person to be arrested and the <br /> offence or other cause for which the arrest is to be made and it <br /> appears therefrom that the person might lawfully be arrested <br /> without a warrant by the officer who issued the requisition. <br /> (2) Subject to the provisions of Section 39, no person <br /> concerned in a non-cognizable offence or against whom a <br /> complaint has been made or credible information has been <br /> received or reasonable suspicion exists of his having so <br /> concerned, shall be arrested except under a warrant or order of <br /> a Magistrate. <br /> (3) The police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest <br /> of a person is not required under sub-section (1) issue a notice <br /> directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has <br /> been made, or credible information has been received, or a <br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 15<br /> reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable <br /> offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be <br /> specified in the notice. <br /> (4) Where such a notice is issued to any person, it shall <br /> be the duty of that person to comply with the terms of the <br /> notice. <br /> (5) Where such person complies and continues to comply <br /> with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the <br /> offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be <br /> recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be <br /> arrested. <br /> (6) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with <br /> the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the <br /> police officer may, subject to such orders as may have been <br /> passed by a competent Court in this behalf, arrest him for the <br /> offence mentioned in the notice. <br /> (7) No arrest shall be made without prior permission of <br /> an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police <br /> in case of an offence which is punishable for imprisonment of <br /> less than three years and such person is infirm or is above sixty <br /> years of age.” <br /> <br /> 10. The interpretation of Section 35(1)(b) need not detain <br /> this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in <br /> <b>SATENDER </b> <b>KUMAR </b> <b>ANTIL </b> <b>v. </b> <b>CENTRAL </b> <b>BUREAU </b> <b>OF </b><br /> 1<br /> <b>INVESTIGATION</b> considers every aspect of Section 35. The Apex <br /> Court holds as follows: <br /></div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>“…. …. ….</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>DISCUSSION</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 16<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>16. An investigation by a police officer generally begins</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>with the recording of information regarding an offence. It is a</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>process which is primarily aimed at the ascertainment of facts</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>and circumstances surrounding an alleged crime and involves</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>the police officer proceeding to the spot of occurrence to collect</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>evidence and ends with the formation of an opinion as to</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>whether, on the basis of the material collected, there is a case to</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>place the accused before a Magistrate for trial and, if so, taking</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>the necessary steps for the same by filing a charge-sheet. This</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>has been succinctly dealt with by this Court in the case of State</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi, (1964) 3 SCR 71 in</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>the following manner:</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>“17. What is investigation is not defined in the Code of<br>Criminal Procedure; but in H.N. Rishbud and Inder<br>Singh v. State of Delhi [(1954) 2 SCC 934 : (1955) 1 SCR<br>1150, 1157-58] this Court has described, the procedure,<br>for investigation as follows:<br>“Thus, under the Code investigation consists generally of<br>the following steps, (1) Proceeding to the spot, (2)<br>Ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the<br>case, (3) Discovery and arrest of the suspected offender,<br>(4) Collection of evidence relating to the commission of<br>the offence which may consist of (a) the examination of<br>various persons (including the accused) and the<br>reduction of their statements into writing, if the officer<br>thinks fit, (b) the search of places of seizure of things<br>considered necessary for the investigation and to be<br>produced at the trial, and (5) formation of the opinion as<br>to whether on the material collected there is a case to<br>place the accused before a Magistrate for trial and if so<br>taking the necessary steps for the same by the filing of a<br>charge-sheet under Section 173.”<br>This Court, however, has not said that if a police officer<br>takes merely one or two of the steps indicated by it, what he<br>has done must necessarily be regarded as<br>investigation. Investigation, in substance, means<br>collection of evidence relating to the commission of the<br>offence. The Investigating Officer is, for this purpose,<br>entitled to question persons who, in his opinion, are<br>able to throw light on the offence which has been<br>committed and is likewise entitled to question the<br>suspect and is entitled to reduce the statements of<br>persons questioned by him to writing. He is also entitled</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>“17. What is investigation is not defined in the Code of</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Criminal Procedure; but in H.N. Rishbud and Inder</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Singh v. State of Delhi [(1954) 2 SCC 934 : (1955) 1 SCR</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1150, 1157-58] this Court has described, the procedure,</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>for investigation as follows:</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>“Thus, under the Code investigation consists generally of</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>the following steps, (1) Proceeding to the spot, (2)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>case, (3) Discovery and arrest of the suspected offender,</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(4) Collection of evidence relating to the commission of</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>the offence which may consist of (a) the examination of</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>various persons (including the accused) and the</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>reduction of their statements into writing, if the officer</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>thinks fit, (b) the search of places of seizure of things</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>considered necessary for the investigation and to be</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>produced at the trial, and (5) formation of the opinion as</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>to whether on the material collected there is a case to</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>place the accused before a Magistrate for trial and if so</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>taking the necessary steps for the same by the filing of a</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>charge-sheet under Section 173.”</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>This Court, however, has not said that if a police officer</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>takes merely one or two of the steps indicated by it, what he</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>has done must necessarily be regarded as</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>investigation. Investigation, in substance, means</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>collection of evidence relating to the commission of the</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>offence. The Investigating Officer is, for this purpose,</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>entitled to question persons who, in his opinion, are</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>able to throw light on the offence which has been</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>committed and is likewise entitled to question the</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>suspect and is entitled to reduce the statements of</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>persons questioned by him to writing. He is also entitled</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 17<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>to search the place of the offence and to search other</th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td>places with the object of seizing articles connected with</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>the offence. No doubt, for this purpose he has to</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>proceed to the spot where the offence was committed</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>and do various other things. But the main object of</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>investigation being to bring home the offence to the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>offender the essential part of the duties of an</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Investigating Officer in this connection is, apart from</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>arresting the offender, to collect all material necessary</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>for establishing the accusation against the offender.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Merely making some preliminary enquiries upon receipt</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>of information from an anonymous source or a source of</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>doubtful reliability for checking up the correctness of</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>the information does not amount to collection of</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>evidence and so cannot be regarded as investigation. In</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>the absence of any prohibition in the Code, express or</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>implied, I am of opinion that it is open to a police officer</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>to make preliminary enquiries before registering an</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>offence and making a full scale investigation into it…”</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(emphasis supplied)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>17. An arrest, being an act done by a police officer</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>in furtherance of an investigation, is discretionary and</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>optional to be applied on the facts of a particular case.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 provides for situations</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>where a person may be arrested by a police officer,</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>without a warrant.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>“35. When police may arrest without warrant.—<br>(1) Any police officer may without an order from a<br>Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person—<br>(a) who commits, in the presence of a police officer, a<br>cognizable offence; or<br>(b) against whom a reasonable complaint has been<br>made, or credible information has been received,<br>or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has<br>committed a cognizable offence punishable with<br>imprisonment for a term which may be less than<br>seven years or which may extend to seven years</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>“35. When police may arrest without warrant.—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>(1) Any police officer may without an order from a</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(a) who commits, in the presence of a police officer, a</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>cognizable offence; or</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(b) against whom a reasonable complaint has been</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>made, or credible information has been received,</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>committed a cognizable offence punishable with</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>imprisonment for a term which may be less than</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>seven years or which may extend to seven years</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 18<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>whether with or without fine, if the following</th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td>conditions are satisfied, namely:—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(i) the police officer has reason to believe on the<br>basis of such complaint, information, or<br>suspicion that such person has committed the<br>said offence;<br>(ii) the police officer is satisfied that such arrest is<br>necessary—<br>(a) to prevent such person from committing any<br>further offence; or<br>(b) for proper investigation of the offence; or<br>(c) to prevent such person from causing the<br>evidence of the offence to disappear or<br>tampering with such evidence in any<br>manner; or<br>(d) to prevent such person from making any<br>inducement, threat or promise to any person<br>acquainted with the facts of the case so as to<br>dissuade him from disclosing such facts to<br>the Court or to the police officer; or<br>(e) as unless such person is arrested, his<br>presence in the Court whenever required<br>cannot be ensured,<br>and the police officer shall record while making<br>such arrest, his reasons in writing:<br>Provided that a police officer shall, in all<br>cases where the arrest of a person is not<br>required under the provisions of this sub-section,<br>record the reasons in writing for not making the<br>arrest; or</td><td>(i) the police officer has reason to believe on the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>basis of such complaint, information, or</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>suspicion that such person has committed the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>said offence;</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>(ii) the police officer is satisfied that such arrest is</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>necessary—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(a) to prevent such person from committing any</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>further offence; or</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(b) for proper investigation of the offence; or</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(c) to prevent such person from causing the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>evidence of the offence to disappear or</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>tampering with such evidence in any</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>manner; or</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(d) to prevent such person from making any</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>inducement, threat or promise to any person</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>acquainted with the facts of the case so as to</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>dissuade him from disclosing such facts to</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>the Court or to the police officer; or</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(e) as unless such person is arrested, his</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>presence in the Court whenever required</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>cannot be ensured,</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>and the police officer shall record while making</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>such arrest, his reasons in writing:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Provided that a police officer shall, in all</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>cases where the arrest of a person is not</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>required under the provisions of this sub-section,</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>record the reasons in writing for not making the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>arrest; or</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(c) against whom credible information has been received</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>with imprisonment for a term which may extend to</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>more than seven years whether with or without fine or</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 19<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>with death sentence and the police officer has reason to</th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>believe on the basis of that information that such</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>person has committed the said offence; or</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>(d) who has been proclaimed as an offender either under</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>this Sanhita or by order of the State Government; or</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>(e) in whose possession anything is found which may</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>reasonably be suspected to be stolen property and who</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>may reasonably be suspected of having committed an</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>offence with reference to such thing; or</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>(f) who obstructs a police officer while in the execution of his</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>duty, or who has escaped, or attempts to escape, from</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>lawful custody; or</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>(g) who is reasonably suspected of being a deserter from</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>any of the Armed Forces of the Union; or</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>(h) who has been concerned in, or against whom a</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>reasonable complaint has been made, or credible</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>information has been received, or a reasonable</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>suspicion exists, of his having been concerned in, any</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>act committed at any place out of India which, if</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>committed in India, would have been punishable as an</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>offence, and for which he is, under any law relating to</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>extradition, or otherwise, liable to be apprehended or</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>detained in custody in India; or</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>(i) who, being a released convict, commits a breach of any</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>rule made under sub-section (5) of Section 394; or</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>(j) for whose arrest any requisition, whether written or</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>oral, has been received from another police officer,</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>provided that the requisition specifies the person to be</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>arrested and the offence or other cause for which the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>arrest is to be made and it appears therefrom that the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>person might lawfully be arrested without a warrant by</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>the officer who issued the requisition.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>(2) Subject to the provisions of Section 39, no person</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>concerned in a non-cognizable offence or against whom a</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>complaint has been made or credible information has been</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>received or reasonable suspicion exists of his having so</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 20<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>concerned, shall be arrested except under a warrant or order</th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td>of a Magistrate.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(3) The police officer shall, in all cases where the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>arrest of a person is not required under sub-section (1)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>issue a notice directing the person against whom a</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>reasonable complaint has been made, or credible</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>information has been received, or a reasonable</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>offence, to appear before him or at such other place as</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>may be specified in the notice.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(4) Where such a notice is issued to any person, it</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>shall be the duty of that person to comply with the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>terms of the notice.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(5) Where such person complies and continues to</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless,</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>opinion that he ought to be arrested.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(6) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>with the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>himself, the police officer may, subject to such orders as</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>may have been passed by a competent Court in this</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>behalf, arrest him for the offence mentioned in the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>notice.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(7) No arrest shall be made without prior permission of an</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>in case of an offence which is punishable for imprisonment of</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>less than three years and such person is infirm or is above</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>sixty years of age.”</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(emphasis supplied)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>18. Section 35(1) of the BNSS, 2023, through the use of</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>the word “may,” makes the position of law rather clear that the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>power of arrest is discretionary and optional. The power of arrest</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>under Section 35(1)(a) to Section 35(1)(j) of the BNSS,</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2023 are distinct and different from each other, with the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>commonality being an offence which is cognizable in nature.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 21<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>19. To attract the power of arrest under</th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023, the conditions</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>mentioned thereunder ought to be complied with</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>scrupulously. Section 35(1)(b)(i) and Section</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>35(1)(b)(ii) of the BNSS, 2023 must be read together,</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>meaning thereby that compliance with</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Section 35(1)(b)(i) of the BNSS, 2023 is a sine qua non in</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>all cases of arrest.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>20. Section 35(1)(b)(i) of the BNSS, 2023 speaks</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>about the “reason to believe” on the part of the police</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>officer. Such a reason to believe should be formed on the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>basis of a complaint, information, or suspicion that the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>person concerned has committed the offence. However,</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>this alone would not suffice. Additionally, any one of the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>conditions mentioned under Section 35(1)(b)(ii) of</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>the BNSS, 2023 must also be satisfied. In other words, it</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>is not required that all the conditions mentioned under</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Section 35(1)(b)(ii) of the BNSS, 2023 should be</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>available, but only the existence of one of them that is</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>required.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>21. After being satisfied that there is a necessity of</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>arrest, a police officer is bound to record his reasons either</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>for arrest, as provided for under Section 35(1)(b) of</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>the BNSS, 2023, or for merely issuing a notice under</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023. Section 35(1)(b) of</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>the BNSS, 2023, thus, carves out an exception, with its</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>inbuilt safeguards.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>22. Suffice it is to state that an investigation can go on</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>even without an arrest. While undertaking the exercise of</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>collecting the evidence for the purpose of forming his opinion over</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>the commission of a cognizable offence, a police officer shall pose</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>a question, to himself, on the necessity of an arrest. This</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>safeguard is provided as, in any case, the power to arrest an</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>accused person is always available with a police officer even after</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>he records his reasons, in writing, for not doing so at an earlier</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>stage.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Joginder Kumar v. State of UP, (1994) 4 SCC 260</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 22<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>“20…No arrest can be made because it is lawful for</th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td>the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>is quite another. The police officer must be able to</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>mere allegation of commission of an offence made</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>against a person. It would be prudent for a police officer</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>reached after some investigation as to the genuineness</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>both as to the person's complicity and even so as to the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>serious matter. The recommendations of the Police</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Commission merely reflect the constitutional concomitants of</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. A</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified. Except</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>in heinous offences, an arrest must be avoided if a</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>police officer issues notice to person to attend the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Station House and not to leave the station without</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>permission would do.”</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(emphasis supplied)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>23. Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023, once again,</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>reiterates the object of the enactment that an arrest by a</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>police officer is not mandatory in all cases. This provision</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>applies to all cognizable offences. However, insofar as the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>offences punishable with imprisonment up to a period of 7</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>years are concerned, this provision will have to be read</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>along with Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023, and its</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>proviso which mandates the furnishing of reasons, in</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>writing, for both, making an arrest and when there is no</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>requirement to do so. As stated above, the requirement of</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>not arresting an accused is qua the stage of issuing notice</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023. Hence, it is amply</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>clear that a harmonious construction of</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Section 35(1)(b) and Section 35(3) of the BNSS,</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2023 needs to be made.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 23<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2025</th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>SCC OnLine SC 1578</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>“22. Section 35(4) of the BNSS, 2023 imposes a duty</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>on the recipient of the notice to the effect that once the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>notice is served, the person must comply with every</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>term of the notice. Section 35(5) of the BNSS,</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>2023 provides that as long as the person to whom the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>notice is issued, appears as is required and continues to</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>comply with the notice, they cannot be arrested in</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>relation to the alleged offence. Arrest may be made only</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>if the Investigating Agency records specific reasons as</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>to why the arrest is necessary.”</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(emphasis supplied)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>24. Section 35(5) of the BNSS, 2023 facilitates the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>liberty of a person by imposing an implied prohibition of</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>arrest when a person complies with a notice issued under</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023. This provision reiterates</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>the fact that any subsequent arrest, being an exception, is</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>warranted only when a police officer forms an opinion for</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>such an arrest, which he is duty bound to record, in</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>writing, by furnishing adequate reasons.”</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <br /> <b>The Apex Court holds that to attract the power of arrest </b><br /> <b>under </b> <b>Section </b> <b>35(1)(b) </b> <b>of </b> <b>the </b> <b>BNSS, </b> <b>the </b> <b>conditions </b><br /> <b>mentioned therein had to be complied with scrupulously. </b><br /> <b>Section 35(1)(b)(i) of the BNSS is </b> <b><i>sine qua non</i></b> <b> in all cases </b><br /> <b>of arrest which speaks of reasons to believe on the part of </b><br /> <b>the police officer and such reasons to believe against the </b><br /> <b>accused should be formed on the basis of a complaint, </b><br /> <b>information or suspicion that the person concerned has </b><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 24<br /> <b>committed </b> <b>the </b> <b>offence. </b> <b>Additionally, </b> <b>any one </b> <b>of </b> <b>the </b><br /> <b>conditions mentioned in Section 35(1)(b)(ii) of the BNSS </b><br /> <b>also must be satisfied. After being satisfied that there is </b><br /> <b>necessity of arrest, the Police Officer is bound to record </b><br /> <b>reasons, either for arrest as provided under Section 35(1)(b) </b><br /> <b>of the BNSS or for merely issuing a notice under Section </b><br /> <b>35(3) of the BNSS. What is clearly mandated is that the </b><br /> <b>reasons for arrest must be recorded and the reason for </b><br /> <b>issuing a notice instead of arrest also must be recorded. </b><br /> <br /> <br /> 11. <b>In the case at hand, the narrative of arrest is </b><br /> <b>conspicuously barren of the essential legal attributes that </b><br /> <b>can give legitimacy to such an act. There is neither record of </b><br /> <b>reasons to believe nor articulation of necessity, nor </b><br /> <b>communication of grounds of arrest to the petitioner. Arrest, </b><br /> <b>in such circumstances, degenerates into empty ritual, away </b><br /> <b>from the discipline of law and bereft of Constitutional </b><br /> <b>propriety. Arrest is not a fleeting administrative act; it is a </b><br /> <b>profound intrusion upon personal liberty. It must be </b><br /> <b>preceded by reason, accompanied by transparency and </b><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 25<br /> <b>justified by necessity. The absence of these fundamental </b><br /> <b>elements renders the so called arrest a legal nullity.</b> The Apex <br /> Court considers who is an accused person and which act of a person <br /> can be considered to have been arrested. The Apex Court in <br /> 2<br /> <b>BALKISHAN A. DEVIDAYAL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA</b> <br /> holds as follows: <br /></div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>70. To sum up, only a person against whom a</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>formal accusation of the commission of an offence has</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>been made can be a person “accused of an offence”</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>within the meaning of Article 20(3). Such formal</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>accusation may be specifically made against him in an</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>FIR or a formal complaint or any other formal document</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>or notice served on that person, which ordinarily results</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>in his prosecution in court. In the instant case no such formal</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>accusation had been made against the appellant when his</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>statement(s) in question were recorded by the RPF officer.”</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> The Apex Court has expounded upon who may be regarded as <br /> an ‘accused’ and when a person can be said to have been arrested, <br /> it is only when a formal acquisition-embroidered in an FIR, <br /> complaint or other formal proceeding capable of culminating in <br /> prosecution is made, that person assumes the character of an <br /> accused within the meaning of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. <br /> <br /> <br /> <b>2</b><br /> <b> (1980) 4 SCC 600 </b><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 26<br /> 12. The aforesaid judgment is followed in <b>DIRECTORATE OF </b><br /> 3<br /> <b>ENFORCEMENT v. DEEPAK MAHAJAN</b> . The Apex Court holds as <br /> follows: <br /></div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>81. The essence of the above decisions is that to</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>bring a person within the meaning of ‘accused of any</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>offence’, that person must assimilate the character of an</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>‘accused person’ in the sense that he must be accused of</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>any offence.</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>92. A thorough and careful study of all the provisions of</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>the Code manifestly discloses that the word ‘accused’ in the</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Code denotes different meanings according to the context</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>in which it is deployed; in that sometimes the said word</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>is employed to denote a person arrested, sometimes a</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>person against whom there is an accusation, but who is</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>yet not put on trial and sometimes to denote a person on</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>trial and so on.</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>94. It may not be out of place to mention here that an</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>officer-in-charge of a police station who is empowered under</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Section 156 to investigate on an information received under</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Section 154 or otherwise takes up the investigation by</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>proceeding to the spot “for the discovery and arrest of</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>the offender when he has reason to suspect the commission of</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>an offence” as contemplated under Section 157 of the Code. At</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>that stage, the investigating officer does not suddenly jump to a</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>conclusion that the person against whom the investigation has</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>commenced has committed an offence. But he can arrive at</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>such a conclusion only when the investigation consummates to a</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>finality on the collection of evidence eliminating all suspicion and</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>establishing the commission of the offence. In case the</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <br /> <b>3</b><br /> <b> (1994) 3 SCC 440 </b><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 27<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>investigating officer arrives at a conclusion that no offence is</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>made out he forwards his final report to that effect.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>.……. ……… ………</td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>98. Thirdly, in the Code different expressions are</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>used under various provisions to denote a person</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>involving in a criminal proceeding such as ‘offender’,</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>‘person’, ‘accused’, ‘accused person’, “accused of an</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>offence” depending on the nature of the proceeding.”</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th>This principle finds reaffirmation in DEEPAK MAHAJAN, where the<br>Apex Court has elucidated, that while expressions ‘person’,<br>‘offender’, ‘accused’ may be employed across statutory<br>provisions, the essence remains constant. There must exist<br>an accusation, in a legally cognizable form, one that carries<br>the potential of prosecution. Mere suspicion, uncrystallized<br>into formal accusation, would not suffice. This again bears<br>lucid interpretation by the Apex Court in DEEPAK MAHAJAN’s case<br>supra in the following paragraphs:</th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>“.……. ……… ………</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>46. The word ‘arrest’ is derived from the French</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>word ‘Arreter’ meaning “to stop or stay” and signifies a</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>restraint of the person. Lexicologically, the meaning of</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>the word ‘arrest’ is given in various dictionaries</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>depending upon the circumstances in which the said</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>expression is used. One of us, (S. Ratnavel Pandian, J. as he</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>then was being the Judge of the High Court of Madras) in Roshan</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Beevi v. Joint Secretary, Government of T.N. [1984 Cri LJ 134 :</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 28<br /> (1984) 15 ELT 289 : 1983 MLW (Cri) 289 (Mad)] had an <br /> occasion to go into the gamut of the meaning of the word ‘arrest’ <br /> with reference to various textbooks and dictionaries <b>,</b> the <i>New </i><br /> <i>Encyclopaedia Britannica, Halsbury</i> ' <i>s Laws of England, A </i><br /> <i>Dictionary </i> <i>of </i> <i>Law</i> by L.B. Curzon, <i>Black's </i> <i>Law </i><br /> <i>Dictionary</i> and <i>Words and Phrases</i> . On the basis of the meaning <br /> given in those textbooks and lexicons, it has been held that: <br /></div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>“[T]he word ‘arrest’ when used in its ordinary and</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>natural sense, means the apprehension or restraint or</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>the deprivation of one's personal liberty. The question</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>whether the person is under arrest or not, depends not</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>on the legality of the arrest, but on whether he has been</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>deprived of his personal liberty to go where he pleases.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>When used in the legal sense in the procedure</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>connected with criminal offences, an arrest consists in</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>the taking into custody of another person under</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>authority empowered by law, for the purpose of holding</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>or detaining him to answer a criminal charge or of</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>preventing the commission of a criminal offence. The</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>essential elements to constitute an arrest in the above</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>sense are that there must be an intent to arrest under</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>the authority, accompanied by a seizure or detention of</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>the person in the manner known to law, which is so</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>understood by the person arrested.”</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>47. There are various sections in Chapter V of the</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Code titled “Arrest of persons” of which Sections 41, 42,</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>43 and 44 empower different authorities and even private</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>persons to arrest a person in given situation. Section 41</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>deals with the power of a police officer to arrest any</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>person without an order from a Magistrate and without a</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>warrant. Section 42 deals with the power of a police officer to</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>arrest any person who in the presence of a police officer has</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>committed or has been accused of committing a non-cognizable</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>offence and who refuses on demand “to give his name and</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>residence or gives a name or residence which such officer has</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>reason to believe to be false”. Section 43 empowers any private</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>person to arrest any person who in his presence commits a non-</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>cognizable offence, or any proclaimed offender. Section 44</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>states that when any offence is committed in the presence of a</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Magistrate whether Executive or Judicial, within his local</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>jurisdiction, he may himself arrest or order any person to arrest</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>the offender and may thereupon subject to the provisions</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>contained in the Code as to bail commit the offender to custody.”</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 29<br /> In the present case, the FIR was initially registered against <br /> unknown persons, with individuals gradually brought within its fold. <br /> <b>The assertion that the petitioner was arrested and released </b><br /> <b>on the same day, necessitates a closer examination of what </b><br /> <b>constitutes arrest, as the Apex Court has clarified arrest </b><br /> <b>involves the act of taking a person lawful custody under </b><br /> <b>lawful authority, with an intent to detain them, to answer a </b><br /> <b>criminal charge, or to prevent the commission of an offence. </b><br /> <b>The presence of lawful authority and intent, are thus </b><br /> <b>indispensable. </b> <b>Measured </b> <b>against </b> <b>these </b> <b>principles, </b> <b>the </b><br /> <b>petitioner's alleged arrest, appears to falter on fundamental </b><br /> <b>grounds. </b><br /> <br /> <br /> 13. Jurisprudence has now evolved to firmly establish that <br /> arrest cannot be effectuated without furnishing the grounds thereof. <br /> The communication of reasons is not a mere procedural formality. <br /> Its absence vitiates the very legality of arrest, and once vitiated, <br /> the custody cannot be sustained even for a moment. This position <br /> has been reiterated in <b>KASIREDDY UPENDER REDDY v. STATE </b><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 30<br /> <b>4</b><br /> <b>OF ANDHRA PRADESH</b> <b> </b> as well as in the Seminal Guidelines laid <br /> down in <b> </b> <b>D.K. BASU v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL</b> <b>. </b> The Apex Court <b> </b><br /> in <b> </b> <b>KASIREDDY UPENDER REDDY</b> <i> supra </i> holds as follows: <br /></div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>“.……. ……… ………</th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>18. Thus, the following principles of law could be said to</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>have been laid down, rather very well explained, in Vihaan</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Kumar (supra):</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>a)</td><td>The requirement of informing the person arrested of the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>constitutional condition.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>b)</td><td>Once a person is arrested, his right to liberty under Article</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>21 is curtailed. When such an important fundamental right</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>is curtailed, it is necessary that the person concerned</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>must understand on what grounds he has been arrested.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>c)</td><td>The mode of conveying the information of the grounds of</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>arrest must be meaningful so as to serve the true object</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>underlying Article 22(1).</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>d)</td><td>If the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>may be after the arrest, it would amount to a</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>guaranteed under Article 22(1).</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>e)</td><td>On the failure to comply with the requirement of</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>informing the grounds of arrest as soon as may be</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>after the arrest, the arrest would stand vitiated.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>arrested cannot remain in custody even for a</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>second.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>f)</td><td>If the police want to prove communication of the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>grounds of arrest only based on a diary entry, it is</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 31<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>necessary to incorporate those grounds of arrest in</th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>the diary entry or any other document. The grounds</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>of arrest must exist before the same are informed.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>g)</td><td>When an arrestee pleads before a court that the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>grounds of arrest were not communicated, the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>burden to prove the compliance of Article 22(1) is</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>on the police authorities.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>h) The grounds of arrest should not only be provided to the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>arrestee but also to his family members and relatives so</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>that necessary arrangements are made to secure the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>release of the person arrested at the earliest possible</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>opportunity so as to make the mandate of Article 22(1)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>meaningful and effective, failing which, such arrest may</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>be rendered illegal.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.……. ……… ………</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>36. If a person is arrested on a warrant, the grounds for</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>reasons for the arrest is the warrant itself; if the warrant is read</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>over to him, that is sufficient compliance with the requirement</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>that he should be informed of the grounds for his arrest. If he is</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>arrested without a warrant, he must be told why he has</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>been arrested. If he is arrested for committing an offence,</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>he must be told that he has committed a certain offence</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>for which he would be placed on trial. In order to inform</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>him that he has committed a certain offence, he must be</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>told of the acts done by him which amounts to the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>offence. He must be informed of the precise acts done by</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>him for which he would be tried; informing him merely of</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>the law applicable to such acts would not be enough. (See</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>: Vimal Kishore Mehrotra (supra))”</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> 5<br /> Court, the Apex Court in <b>D.K. BASU v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL</b> <br /> has laid down certain guidelines. The guidelines are as follows: <br /> “.……. ……… ……… <b> </b><br /> <br /> <b>5</b><br /> <b> (1997) 1 SCC 416 </b><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 32<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>35. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to issue</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>the following requirements to be followed in all cases of</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>behalf as preventive measures:</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>(1) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>their designations. The particulars of all such police personnel</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>a register.</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>(2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>one witness, who may either be a member of the family</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>from where the arrest is made. It shall also be</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>time and date of arrest.</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>(3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>being held in custody in a police station or interrogation centre</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>relative or other person known to him or having interest in his</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>been arrested and is being detained at the particular place,</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>such a friend or a relative of the arrestee.</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th>(4)</th><th>The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>arrestee must be notified by the police where the next friend</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>through the Legal Aid Organisation in the District and the</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>police station of the area concerned telegraphically within a</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest.</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th>(5)</th><th>The person arrested must be made aware of this right</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>as he is put under arrest or is detained.</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 33<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>(6)</th><th>An entry must be made in the diary at the place of</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>detention regarding the arrest of the person which shall also</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>disclose the name of the next friend of the person who has</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>been informed of the arrest and the names and particulars of</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is.</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th>(7)</th><th>The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>examined at the time of his arrest and major and minor</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>injuries, if any present on his/her body, must be recorded at</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>that time. The “Inspection Memo” must be signed both by the</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and its copy</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>provided to the arrestee.</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th>(8)</th><th>The arrestee should be subjected to medical</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>examination by a trained doctor every 48 hours during his</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the State or</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Union Territory concerned. Director, Health Services should</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>prepare such a panel for all tehsils and districts as well.</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th>(9)</th><th>Copies of all the documents including the memo of</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>arrest, referred to above, should be sent to the Illaqa</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Magistrate for his record.</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th>(10)</th><th>The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>(11) A police control room should be provided at all district</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>and State headquarters, where information regarding the</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>should be displayed on a conspicuous notice board.</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>36. Failure to comply with the requirements</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>hereinabove mentioned shall apart from rendering the</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>official concerned liable for departmental action, also</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>render him liable to be punished for contempt of court</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>and the proceedings for contempt of court may be</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>instituted in any High Court of the country, having</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>territorial jurisdiction over the matter.</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 34<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>37. The requirements, referred to above flow from</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and need to be</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>strictly followed. These would apply with equal force to</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>the other governmental agencies also to which a</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>reference has been made earlier.</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>38. These requirements are in addition to the</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>constitutional and statutory safeguards and do not detract</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>from various other directions given by the courts from</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>time to time in connection with the safeguarding of the</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>rights and dignity of the arrestee.</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>39. The requirements mentioned above shall be forwarded</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>to the Director General of Police and the Home Secretary of</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>every State/Union Territory and it shall be their obligation to</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>circulate the same to every police station under their charge and</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>get the same notified at every police station at a conspicuous</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>place. It would also be useful and serve larger interest to</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>broadcast the requirements on All India Radio besides being</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>shown on the National Network of Doordarshan any by</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>publishing and distributing pamphlets in the local language</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>containing these requirements for information of the general</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>public. Creating awareness about the rights of the arrestee</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>would in our opinion be a step in the right direction to combat</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>the evil of custodial crime and bring in transparency and</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>accountability. It is hoped that these requirements would help to</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>curb, if not totally eliminate, the use of questionable methods</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>during interrogation and investigation leading to custodial</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>commission of crimes.”</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <b>Applying the said principles to the case at hand, it becomes </b><br /> <b>manifest that the so-called arrest of the petitioner is, on the </b><br /> <b>face of it, unsustainable in law. There is no material to </b><br /> <b>demonstrate </b> <b>that </b> <b>the </b> <b>arresting </b> <b>officer, </b> <b>recorded </b> <b>any </b><br /> <b>reasonable suspicion or credible information linking the </b><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 35<br /> <b>petitioner to a cognizable offence. There is a conspicuous </b><br /> <b>absence of any recorded reasons, justifying the arrest and </b><br /> <b>equally no evidence that the ground of arrest were even </b><br /> <b>communicated to the petitioner. A reasonable suspicion is </b><br /> <b>not mere conjecture or a fleeting possibility. It demands </b><br /> <b>foundation rooted in due diligence, an exercise of mind by an </b><br /> <b>officer entrusted with statutory authority. Such foundational </b><br /> <b>requirements are entirely absent in the case at hand. None, </b><br /> <b>of the procedural or substantive safeguards, that lend </b><br /> <b>legitimacy to an arrest have </b> <b>been observed. </b> In the <br /> circumstances, the conclusion is inescapable; the arrest of the <br /> petitioner is patently illegal. The first issue, therefore, stands <br /> answered unequivocally in favour of the petitioner. <br /> <br /> <b>ISSUE NO.2: </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>Whether the report pursuant to conduct of medical </b><br /> <b>examination under Section 51 of the BNSS in the absence of </b><br /> <b>such lawful arrest can be relied upon to continue the </b><br /> <b>prosecution against the petitioner? </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 36<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>15. The extraction of petitioner's blood sample is sought to be<br>justified on the tenuous and specious premise of the aforesaid<br>arrest. However, the legality of such an act must be tested against<br>the statutory framework governing medical and biological<br>examination of an accused. This domain is now regulated by<br>Section 51 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 53 of the<br>erstwhile CrPC. It is, therefore, apposite to juxtapose the two<br>provisions. They read as follows:</th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>SECTION 51 OF BNSS</td><td></td><td>SECTION 53 OF CRPC</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>51. Examination of accused by<br>medical practitioner at request<br>of police officer.—(1) When a<br>person is arrested on a charge of<br>committing an offence of such a<br>nature and alleged to have been<br>committed under such<br>circumstances that there are<br>reasonable grounds for believing<br>that an examination of his person<br>will afford evidence as to the<br>commission of an offence, it shall<br>be lawful for a registered medical<br>practitioner, acting at the request of<br>any police officer, and for any<br>person acting in good faith in his<br>aid and under his direction, to make<br>such an examination of the person<br>arrested as is reasonably necessary<br>in order to ascertain the facts which<br>may afford such evidence, and to<br>use such force as is reasonably</td><td></td><td>53. Examination of accused by<br>medical practitioner at the<br>request of police officer.—(1)<br>When a person is arrested on a<br>charge of committing an offence of<br>such a nature and alleged to have<br>been committed under such<br>circumstances that there are<br>reasonable grounds for believing<br>that an examination of his person<br>will afford evidence as to the<br>commission of an offence, it shall<br>be lawful for a registered medical<br>practitioner, acting at the request of<br>a police officer not below the rank<br>of Sub-Inspector, and for any<br>person acting in good faith in his<br>aid and under his direction, to make<br>such an examination of the person<br>arrested as is reasonably necessary<br>in order to ascertain the facts which<br>may afford such evidence, and to</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 37<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>necessary for that purpose.<br>(2) Whenever the person of a<br>female is to be examined under this<br>section, the examination shall be<br>made only by, or under the<br>supervision of, a female registered<br>medical practitioner.<br>(3) The registered medical<br>practitioner shall, without any<br>delay, forward the examination<br>report to the investigating officer.<br>Explanation.—In this section and<br>Sections 52 and 53,—<br>(a) “examination” shall<br>include the examination of<br>blood, blood stains,<br>semen, swabs in case of<br>sexual offences, sputum<br>and sweat, hair samples<br>and finger nail clippings<br>by the use of modern and<br>scientific techniques<br>including DNA profiling<br>and such other tests<br>which the registered<br>medical practitioner thinks<br>necessary in a particular<br>case;<br>(b) “registered medical<br>practitioner” means a<br>medical practitioner who<br>possesses any medical<br>qualification recognised<br>under the National Medical<br>Commission Act, 2019 (30<br>of 2019) and whose name<br>has been entered in the<br>National Medical Register<br>or a State Medical</th><th>use such force as is reasonably<br>necessary for that purpose.<br>(2) Whenever the person of a<br>female is to be examined under this<br>section, the examination shall be<br>made only by, or under the<br>supervision of, a female registered<br>medical practitioner.<br>Explanation.—In this section and<br>in Sections 53-A and 54,—<br>(a) “examination” shall<br>include the examination of<br>blood, blood stains,<br>semen, swabs in case of<br>sexual offences, sputum<br>and sweat, hair samples<br>and finger nail clippings<br>by the use of modern and<br>scientific techniques<br>including DNA profiling<br>and such other tests<br>which the registered<br>medical practitioner thinks<br>necessary in a particular<br>case;<br>(b) “registered medical<br>practitioner” means a<br>medical practitioner who<br>possesses any medical<br>qualification as defined in<br>clause (h) of Section 2 of<br>the Indian Medical Council<br>Act, 1956 and whose<br>name has been entered in<br>a State Medical Register.</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th>use such force as is reasonably</th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>necessary for that purpose.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>(2) Whenever the person of a</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>female is to be examined under this</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>section, the examination shall be</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>made only by, or under the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>supervision of, a female registered</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>medical practitioner.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Explanation.—In this section and</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>in Sections 53-A and 54,—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>(3) The registered medical</th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>practitioner shall, without any</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>delay, forward the examination</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>report to the investigating officer.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Explanation.—In this section and</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sections 52 and 53,—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><tbody><tr><td>(a) “examination” shall</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>include the examination of</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>blood, blood stains,</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>semen, swabs in case of</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>sexual offences, sputum</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>and sweat, hair samples</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>and finger nail clippings</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>by the use of modern and</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>scientific techniques</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>including DNA profiling</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>and such other tests</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>which the registered</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>medical practitioner thinks</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>necessary in a particular</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>case;</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(b) “registered medical</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>practitioner” means a</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>medical practitioner who</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>possesses any medical</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>qualification as defined in</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>clause (h) of Section 2 of</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>the Indian Medical Council</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Act, 1956 and whose</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>name has been entered in</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>a State Medical Register.</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><tbody><tr><td>(a) “examination” shall</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>include the examination of</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>blood, blood stains,</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>semen, swabs in case of</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>sexual offences, sputum</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>and sweat, hair samples</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>and finger nail clippings</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>by the use of modern and</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>scientific techniques</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>including DNA profiling</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>and such other tests</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>which the registered</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>medical practitioner thinks</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>necessary in a particular</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>case;</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(b) “registered medical</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>practitioner” means a</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>medical practitioner who</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>possesses any medical</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>qualification recognised</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>under the National Medical</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Commission Act, 2019 (30</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>of 2019) and whose name</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>has been entered in the</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>National Medical Register</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>or a State Medical</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 38<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>Register under that Act.</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Register under that Act.</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> <br /> <b>A careful reading of Section 51 of the BNSS and Section 53 of </b><br /> <b>the CrPC reveals that the power to conduct medical or </b><br /> <b>biological examination is inextricably linked to a lawful </b><br /> <b>arrest.</b> The statute is explicit, such examination can be undertaken <br /> only when the person is under arrest and that too upon a request <br /> made by a police officer for such examination. <b>The foundational </b><br /> <b>requirement, therefore, is the existence of a valid arrest. The </b><br /> <b>contours </b> <b>of </b> <b>what </b> <b>constitutes </b> <b>an </b> <b>‘accused’ </b> <b>and </b> <b>the </b><br /> <b>circumstances under which an arrest may be deemed to </b><br /> <b>lawful, have already been exhaustively examined under </b><br /> <b>issue No. 1. It stands admitted that the petitioner's blood </b><br /> <b>sample was obtained, in the absence of a lawful arrest, as </b><br /> <b>the essential procedural safeguards and legal prerequisites </b><br /> <b>governing arrest were neither observed nor complied with, </b><br /> <b>rendering the purported arrest invalid in the eye of law. </b><br /> <br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 39<br /> 16. <b> </b> The interpretation of Section 53 of the CrPC, now Section <br /> 51 of the BNSS, has been subject to the elucidation of law by the <br /> Apex Court and different High Courts. It becomes opposite to refer <br /> to those elucidations of law. <br /> <br /> 16.1. The Apex Court in <b>RITESH SINHA v. STATE OF </b><br /> 6<br /> <b>UTTAR PRADESH</b> holds as follows: <br /></div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>50. It was argued that Section 53 of the Code only</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>contemplates medical examination and taking of voice sample is</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>not a medical examination. Section 53 talks of examination</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>by registered medical practitioner of the person of the</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>accused but, does not use the words “medical</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>examination”. Similarly, Explanation (a) to Section 53 does not</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>use the words “medical examination”. In my opinion, Section 53</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>need not be confined to medical examination. It is pertinent to</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>note that in Selvi [(2010) 7 SCC 263 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1] ,</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>this Court was considering whether narco-analysis, polygraph</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>examination and the BEAP tests violate Article 20(3) of the</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Constitution. While examining this question, this Court analysed</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Section 53 and stated that because those tests are testimonial in</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>nature, they do not fall within the ambit of Section 53 of the</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Code but this Court did not restrict examination of person</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>contemplated in Section 53 to medical examination by a medical</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>practitioner even though the tests impugned therein were tests</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>that were clearly not to be conducted by the medical</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>practitioner. It must be remembered that Section 53 is primarily</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>meant to serve as aid in the investigation. The examination of</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>the accused is to be conducted by a medical practitioner</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>at the instance of the police officer, who is in charge of</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>the investigation. On a fair reading of Section 53 of the</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Code, I am of the opinion that under that section, the</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <br /> <b>6</b><br /> <b> (2013) 2 SCC 357 </b><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 40<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>medical practitioner can conduct the examination or</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>suggest the method of examination.”</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <br /> 7<br /> 16.2. In <b>CHOTKAU v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH</b> the Apex <br /> Court holds as follows: <br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>“.……. ……… ………<br>74. Section 53(1) of the Code enables a police<br>officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector to request a<br>registered medical practitioner, to make such an<br>examination of the person arrested, as is reasonably<br>necessary to ascertain the facts which may afford such<br>evidence, whenever a person is arrested on a charge of<br>committing an offence of such a nature that there are<br>reasonable grounds for believing that an examination of<br>his person will afford evidence as to the commission of an<br>offence. Section 53(1) reads as follows:</th><th></th><th>“.……. ……… ………</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>74. Section 53(1) of the Code enables a police</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector to request a</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>registered medical practitioner, to make such an</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>examination of the person arrested, as is reasonably</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>necessary to ascertain the facts which may afford such</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>evidence, whenever a person is arrested on a charge of</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>committing an offence of such a nature that there are</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>reasonable grounds for believing that an examination of</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>his person will afford evidence as to the commission of an</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>offence. Section 53(1) reads as follows:</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>“53. Examination of accused by medical practitioner</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>at the request of police officer.—(1) When a person is</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>arrested on a charge of committing an offence of such a</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>nature and alleged to have been committed under such</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>circumstances that there are reasonable grounds for believing</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>that an examination of his person will afford evidence as to the</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>commission of an offence, it shall be lawful for a registered</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>medical practitioner, acting at the request of a police officer</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>not below the rank of Sub-Inspector, and for any person</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>acting in good faith in his aid and under his direction, to make</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>such an examination of the person arrested as is reasonably</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>necessary in order to ascertain the facts which may afford</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>such evidence, and to use such force as is reasonably</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>necessary for that purpose.””</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <br /> <br /> 8<br /> 16.3. In <b>MUNNA PANDEY v. STATE OF BIHAR</b> <b>,</b> the Apex <br /> Court holds as follows: <br /> <br /> <b>7</b><br /> <b> (2023) 6 SCC 742 </b><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 41<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>28. Section 53(1)CrPC enables a police officer not</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>below the rank of Sub-Inspector to request a registered</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>medical practitioner, to make such an examination of the</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>person arrested, as is reasonably necessary to ascertain</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>the facts which may afford such evidence, whenever a</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence of</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>such a nature that there are reasonable grounds for</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>believing that an examination of his person will afford</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>evidence as to the commission of an offence.”</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> 16.4. The High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad in <br /> 9<br /> <b>KOKKIRIGADDA DEVARAJ v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH</b> <br /> holds as follows: <br /></div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>“.……. ……… ………</th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>11. So, by virtue of the amendment, the term</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>‘examination’ imbibes in itself DNA profiling also among other</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>tests. Since Section 53 appears in the Chapter-V of Cr.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>P.C. under the heading “Arrest of Persons” and since</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>phraseology such as “when a person is arrested on a</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>charge of committing an offence examination of his</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>person will afford evidence as the commission of an</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>offence etc., is employed, one can understand that the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>examination of such arrested person takes place during</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>the course of investigation.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>12. Then, we have judicial pronouncements to the effect</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>that though a person is not in custody and he is on bail, still</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>concerned Court on the request of the Investigating Officer can</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>direct the accused to undergo the test mentioned in Section 53</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>to facilitate the investigation.”</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <br /> <b>8</b><br /> <b> (2024) 18 SCC 728 </b><br /> <b>9</b><br /> <b> 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd.2261 </b><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 42<br /> 16.5. The High Court of Madras in <b>THANIEL VICTOR v. </b><br /> 10<br /> <b>STATE</b> has held as follows: <br /></div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td>27. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ananth</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1977 Crl LJ 1797 had</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>occasion to consider the scope of S. 53 Cr. P.C. The Court held</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>that under the new Code, provision had been made for</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>the medical examination of the arrested person at the</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>instance of a police officer of a proper rank and also at</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>the instance of the arrested person himself, and such</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>examination necessarily formed part of investigation as</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>defined in S. 2(4) of the Code. The Court also took the view</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>that examination of a person by a Medical Paractitioner must</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>logically take in examination, by testing his blood, sputum,</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>semen, urine, etc. which cannot be held to be outside the scope</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>of S. 53 of the Code. As the section itself contemplated, even</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>reasonable force can be used to subject the arrested to medical</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>examination, though it may discomfort him. The opinion</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>expressed by me earlier is echoed in this ruling of the Andhra</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Pradesh High Court. Where it has been held that release of an</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>arrested person on bail cannot take away the reality of</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>the situation and the arrested person does not cease to</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>be an arrested person or an accused person for the</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>purpose of Ss. 53 and 54 of the Code. On the question of</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>imposition of conditions, while directing release on bail of the</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>accused, the learned Judge held that the condition “otherwise in</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>the interests of Justice” contemplated in Section 437(3)(c) Cr.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>P.C. can be imposed. The Court further held that direction could</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>be given by a Court, subjecting a person released on bail, for</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>medical examination, since it was a condition necessary for</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>investigation.”</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> In <b> RITESH SINHA</b> , the Apex Court in paragraph 50 delineates the <br /> scope on limitations of such powers. Similarly in <b>CHOTKAU</b> and <br /> <br /> <b>10</b><br /> <b> 1990 SCC OnLine Mad 126 </b><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 43<br /> <b>MUNNA PANDEY</b> , the Apex Court reiterates the necessity of strict <br /> adherence to statutory safeguards before subjecting an individual to <br /> medical examination. The High Court of Telangana and the High <br /> Court of Madras have echoed these principles, underscoring that <br /> such examinations cannot be conducted as a matter of routine or <br /> convenience, but only upon the satisfaction of legally mandated <br /> conditions. <br /> <br /> 17. A harmonious reading, a blend of these judicial <br /> pronouncements yields a singular unmistakable principle, even a <br /> medical or biological examination cannot be undertaken unless the <br /> Investigating Officer, records reasonable grounds demonstrating <br /> that such examination is imperative, for the purposes of <br /> investigation. Upon such satisfaction, a formal request must be <br /> made to the registered medical practitioner, who may then proceed <br /> with the examination, but crucially, only of a person who has been <br /> lawfully arrested. <br /> <br /> 18. <b>In the case at hand, the very substratum of this </b><br /> <b>process - a lawful arrest, is conspicuously absent. The </b><br /> <b>petitioner was never arrested in accordance with law. </b><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 44<br /> <b>Consequently, the subsequent act of subjecting her to </b><br /> <b>medical/biological examination lacks legal foundation. Thus, </b><br /> <b>the collection of petitioner's blood sample far from being a </b><br /> <b>lawful investigative step, stands vitiated as an act, in clear </b><br /> <b>transgression </b> <b>of </b> <b>statutory </b> <b>mandate. </b> <b>The </b> <b>medical </b><br /> <b>examination, having been concluded in the absence of valid </b><br /> <b>arrest and without adherence to prescribed safeguards, </b><br /> <b>inevitably collapses under the weight of legal scrutiny, </b><br /> <b>rendering it unsustainable in law. </b><br /> <br /> <br /> <b>ISSUE NO.3: </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>Whether the report of such medical examination can be </b><br /> <b>relied upon as proof of consumption? </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> 19. The gravamen of the charge against the petitioner is the <br /> alleged consumption of cocaine. This allegation rests entirely upon <br /> a medical report. However, the medical report itself is not an <br /> independent or unimpeachable piece of evidence. It is a direct <br /> product of procedurally tainted process. The procedural aberration, <br /> in turn finds its genesis in an arrest that has already been held to <br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 45<br /> be illegal. Apart from this infirm medical report, there exists no <br /> other material, either by way of allegation or evidence or any <br /> corroboration linking the petitioner to consumption of any narcotic <br /> substance. There is no recovery of contraband from her possession. <br /> There is no independent corroboration. In such circumstances, the <br /> very foundation required to invoke Section 27(b) of the Act stands <br /> conspicuously absent. Section 27(b) as noticed <i>supra</i> , contemplates <br /> punishment for consumption of a narcotic substance. <b>The </b><br /> <b>jurisprudence, surrounding the provision, is both consistent </b><br /> <b>and instructive. Courts across the country have repeatedly </b><br /> <b>held that the </b> <b><i>sine qua non</i></b> <b> for establishing consumption is </b><br /> <b>credible and legally obtained evidence, most commonly in </b><br /> <b>the form of a valid medical or forensic report based on a </b><br /> <b>biological sample. </b><br /> <br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>19.1. It now becomes apposite to refer to the judgments of<br>the courts of the country. This Court in HANUMANTHA v. STATE<br>OF KARNATAKA11 has held as follows:</th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>“.……. ……… ………</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <br /> <b>11</b><br /> <b> 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 10634 </b><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 46<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>10. Section 27 of the Act reads as follows:</th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>“27. Punishment for consumption of any narcotic</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>drug or psychotropic substance.—Whoever consumes any</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>narcotic drug or psychotropic substance shall be punishable,—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(a) where the narcotic drug or psychotropic</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>substance consumed is cocaine, morphine, diacetyl-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>morphine or any other narcotic drug or any psychotropic</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>substance as may be specified in this behalf by the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Central Government by notification in the Official</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Gazette, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>to twenty thousand rupees, or with both; and</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(b) where the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>consumed is other than those specified in or under clause (a),</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>rupees, or with both.”</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(Emphasis supplied)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Section 27 makes it an offence of any person consuming</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>any narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance. The</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>punishment that is imposable is one year with or without</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>fine. But, nonetheless, it is an offence under the Act. If</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>consumption has to be proved, the primary evidence would</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>be the presence of contraband substance in the blood</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>sample. The blood sample is drawn and sent to FSL and the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>report of FSL indicates no contraband substance of any kind in the</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>blood samples of the petitioners. The charge sheet, therefore,</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>with mala fide intention, is deliberately filed by the Station House</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Officer and the Police Sub-Inspector of Varthur Police Station.”</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <br /> <br /> 19.2. The High Court of Kerala in <b>DEON JOSEY v. STATE OF </b><br /> 12<br /> <b>KERALA</b> has held as follows: <br /> <br /> <b>12</b><br /> <b> Crl.M.C.No.3609 of 2023 decided on 27-06-2023 </b><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 47<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>“.……. ……… ………</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>8. Section 27 would apply only when the person is</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>found consuming any narcotic drug or psychotropic</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>substance. No material has been collected by the</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>investigating officer to substantiate that the petitioner</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>was consuming a narcotic drug or a psychotropic</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>substance. In that view of the matter, the continuance of</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>process.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>9. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is entitled to</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>succeed. All further proceedings as against him in C.C.No.786 of</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2022 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>(Economic Offences), Ernakulam, is quashed.”</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> 19.3. Again, the High Court of Kerala in <b>ANURAG SHAJI v. </b><br /> 13<br /> <b>STATE OF KERALA</b> has held as follows: <br /></div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>“.……. ……… ………</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>4. The short point raised by the petitioner is that</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>without a chemical analysis report, there is no chance for</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>a successful prosecution and hence the continuation of</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>the prosecution case against the petitioner is an abuse of</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>process of court. This Court directed the public</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Prosecutor to get instructions whether any expert opinion</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>is obtained to show that the beedi used by the petitioner</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>is a narcotic substance. The Public Prosecutor after</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>getting instructions submitted that no analysis report is</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>obtained in this case.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>5. In the light of the above submission of the Public</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Prosecutor that there is no analysis report, the</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner is</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>an abuse of process of court. No materials has been</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>collected by the Investigating Officer to substantiate that</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>the petitioner was consuming a narcotic drug or</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <br /> <b>13</b><br /> <b> Crl.M.C.No.9931 of 2023 decided on 5-12-2023 </b><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 48<br /> <b>psychotropic substance. </b> The same view was taken by this <br /> Court in the order dated 27.06.2023 in Crl. M.C No. 3609/2023. <br /> In the light of the same this Criminal Miscellaneous Case can be <br /> allowed.” <br /> <br /> <br /> 19.4. The State of Telangana in <b>CHALLAPALLY BHARGAV </b><br /> 14<br /> <b>SAI v. STATE OF TELANGANA</b> has held as follows: <br /></div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>“.……. ……… ………</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>17 . As extracted supra, to make out an offence</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>under Section 27 of NDPS Act, consumption of narcotic</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>drug or psychotropic substance is to be made out. It is</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>settled law that to bring home the contents of Section 27</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>of NDPS Act against petitioner, the individual must be</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>tested positive for arty of the banned substance uncler</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>NDpS Act. It is the responsibility of the State to establish</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>that petitioner/accused is under the influence of any oi</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>the banned substance.In the absence of any,</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>documentary evidence/test, an adverse inference can be</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>drawn.”</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(Emphasis supplied at each instance)</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> This Court in <b> </b> <b>HANUMANTHA</b> <b> </b> <i>supra </i> has recognized this principle <br /> and the High Court of Kerala in <b>DEON JOSEY</b> and again in the case <br /> of <b>ANURAG SHAJI</b> has emphatically held that in the absence of <br /> material demonstrating consumption, the prosecution cannot be <br /> sustained under Section 27. Similarly, the High Court of Telangana <br /> in <b>CHALLAPALLY</b> <i>supra</i> has held that the consumption of a <br /> <br /> <b>14</b><br /> <b> Crl.P.No.15414 of 2024 decided on 16-04-2025 </b><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 49<br /> narcotic or psychotropic substance can be established, only where <br /> the individual tests positive for such substance. <br /> <br /> 20. <b> Thus, the legal position is unambiguous. The </b><br /> <b>fulcrum of Section 27(b) is consumption. The fulcrum of </b><br /> <b>providing such consumption is the blood sample. The </b><br /> <b>legitimacy of such blood sample is contingent upon a lawful </b><br /> <b>medical examination. The medical examination in turn, is </b><br /> <b>governed by Section 51 of the BNSS, which can be set into </b><br /> <b>motion, only upon the lawful arrest. </b> In the present case, this <br /> chain stands irreparably broken at its very inception. <b>The arrest </b><br /> <b>itself has been found to be unlawful. Consequently, the </b><br /> <b>medical examination conducted pursuant thereto is vitiated. </b><br /> <b>The blood sample being a derivative of that illegality stands </b><br /> <b>tainted and the medical report founded upon the tainted </b><br /> <b>sample, cannot be accorded any evidentiary value. In the </b><br /> <b>absence of a legally obtained forensic report, it is wholly </b><br /> <b>inconceivable as to how the petitioner can be compelled to </b><br /> <b>undergo the rigors and ordeal of a criminal trial.</b> To permit <br /> such prosecution to continue would be to sanction a process built <br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 50<br /> entirely upon illegality. Accordingly, the proceedings initiated <br /> against the petitioner, solely predicated on the alleged consumption <br /> of cocaine, under Section 27(b) of the Act, cannot be sustained and <br /> would merit obliteration. <br /> <br /> <br /> <b>SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: </b><br /> <br /> (1) Section 51 of the BNSS, which governs medical <br /> examination can be invoked only upon the existence of <br /> a lawful arrest. In the absence of such arrest, the <br /> collection of a blood sample is impermissible in law. <br /> <br /> (2) A lawful arrest necessitates strict compliance with <br /> statutory safeguards including communication of the <br /> grounds of arrest, recording of reasons and adherence <br /> to all mandatory procedural requirements. Where a <br /> blood sample is produced pursuant to an illegal arrest, <br /> the resulting medical and forensic report stands vitiated <br /> and cannot be relied upon by the prosecution. <br /> <br /> (3) The charge is solely founded upon the alleged <br /> consumption of a narcotic substance, as inferred from <br /> the blood sample. Once the blood sample itself is held <br /> to be illegally obtained, the very substratum of the <br /> prosecution case collapses, consequently, the <br /> <br /><br /> <br /> 51<br /> continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would <br /> amount to an abuse of the process of the law and <br /> cannot be permitted. <br /> <br /> <br /> 21. For aforesaid reasons, the following: <br /> <br /> <b>O R D E R </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> (i) Criminal Petition is <b> allowed. </b><br /> <br /> (ii) Proceedings in Special Case No.1182 of 2025 pending <br /> before VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge and <br /> Special Judge for NDPS cases at Bangalore Rural <br /> District and all actions leading to the said special case <br /> stand quashed qua the petitioner/accused No.12. <br /> <br /> (iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the <br /> course of the order are only for the purpose of <br /> consideration of the case of petitioner under Section <br /> 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence <br /> the proceedings against other accused. <br /> <br /> <br /> Consequently, I.A.No.2 of 2026 also stands disposed. <br /> <i> </i><br /> <i> </i><br /> <i> </i><br /> <br /> <br /> <b>SD/- </b><br /> <b>(M.NAGAPRASANNA) </b><br /> <b>JUDGE </b><br /> Bkp <br /> CT:MJ <br /> </div>