SUPREME COURT & HIGHCOURT Rulings on POLICE

1.4 : ARREST AND CUSTODY111.1: RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTYJoginder Kumar vs State of U.P. and Others*FactsHeldThe petitioner, a young advocate of 28 years, was called by the SSP Ghaziabad, UP.,Respondent 4, in his office for makil1g enquiries in some case. It was alleged that on7.1.1994 at about 10 o'clock he personally along with his brothers appeared before theSSP. At about 12.55 p.m. the brother of the petitioner sent a telegram, to the ChiefMinister of U.P. apprehending the petitioner" false implication in some criminal case andhis death in fake encounter. In the evening, it came to be known that the petitioner wasdetained in the illegal custody of respondent 5 Next days the SHO instead of producingthe petitioner before. Magistrate asked the relatives to approach the SSP. On 9.1.1994in the evening, relatives of the petitioner came to know that the petitioner had beentaken to some undisclosed destination. Under these circumstances the. writ petitionunder Article 32 was preferred for release of the petitioner. The Supreme Court on11.1.1994 ordered notice to the State of U.P. as well as SSP, Ghaziabad. The SSPalong with the petitioner appeared before the Court on 14.1.1.994 and stated thatpetitioner was not in detention at all and that his help Was taken for detecting somecases relating to abduction and the petitioner Was helpful in cooperating with the police.Therefore, there was no question of detaining him.The Supreme Court while directing the District Judge, Ghaziabad, to make a detailedenquiry and submit his report within four weeks observed as under:The quality of a nation's civilization can' be largely measured by the methods it uses inthe enforcement of criminal law. The horizon of human rights is expending. At the sametime, the crime rate is also increasing. The Court has been receiving complaints aboutviolation of human rights because of indiscriminate arrests; A realistic approach sh9utdbe made in this direction. The law of arrest is one of balancing individual rights, libertiesand privileges, on the one hand, and individual duties, obligations and responsibilities,on the other, of weighing and balancing the rights, liberties and privileges of the singleindividual and those of individuals collectively; of simply deciding what is wanted andwhere to put the weight and the emphasis; of deciding which comes first - the criminalor society, the law violator or the raw abider.*1994 Cr.L.J. 1981 / (1994) 4SCC 260