This article has been written by Kumari Shalini, a student studying B.A. LL. B from Lloyd Law College, Gr. Noida. The author is a 3rd -year law student.
Introduction
Regardless of what their identities are, all people have the right to life and personal freedom. This implies that even a person accused of a horrible crime has precious rights that cannot be taken away from them. All humans are born free and equal in their rights and dignity, as stated in Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and they are all equipped with reason and conscience. As such, they should act towards one another with the spirit of universal brotherhood and conscience. These fundamental rights for people are upheld by our Constitution. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, there are limitations on the police’s ability to make an arrest. A fair trial can only take place if these rights are respected.
What are the rights available under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr Pc)
Right to know the reason for arrest-
In accordance with Section 50(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, an accused who is detained by a police officer without a warrant has a right to be informed of the specifics of the offense for which he is being detained, and it is the police officer’s unquestionable responsibility to provide the accused with this information. The same is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution as well. According to Article 22(2) of the Constitution, a person who has been arrested cannot be held in custody without being promptly informed of the reason for the arrest. Also, in section 75 of CrPC, the police officer shall notify the person who is to be arrested and also show him the warrant when required. A person against whom a First Information Report has been filed is considered an accused in the criminal justice system.
Right to silence–
According to the law, any confession or statement made to a police officer is not admissible. The right to silence mostly addresses confession. Although the accused can break their silence in front of a magistrate, it must be done voluntarily and without coercion or other enticement. The magistrate is obligated to take a number of steps to ensure the veracity and dependability of the information he mentioned. A lot more by interpretation than by regulation, the right to silence and the right against self-incrimination have been diminished.
Right to be taken before a magistrate without delay-
Any person who makes an arrest must bring the person being held before a judicial judge without undue delay, regardless of whether the arrest was made without a warrant by a police officer or with a warrant by anyone. Additionally, it is stated that before being brought before the magistrate, the apprehended person should not be held in any location other than a police station. These matters are covered under sections 56 and 76 of the Cr PC, which are listed below:
Section 56, of Cr PC, Person arrested to be taken before Magistrate of an officer in charge of the police station. A police officer making an arrest without warrant shall, without unnecessary delay and subject to the provisions herein contained as to bail, take or send the person arrested before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case, or before the officer in charge of a police station.
Section 76, of the same provision, Person arrested to be brought before Court without delay. The police officer or other person executing a warrant of arrest shall (subject to the provisions of section 71 as to security) without unnecessary delay bring the person arrested before the Court before which he is required by law to produce such person: Provided that such delay shall not, in any case, exceed twenty- four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s Court.
Whether the arrest is without the warrant or under a warrant the arrested person must be brought before the magistrate within the time of 24 hours, section 57 of Cr PC provides as follows,
Person arrested not to be detained for more than twenty- four hours. No police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without a warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a special order of a Magistrate under section 167, exceed twenty- four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s Court.
The court said in the case of Poovan vs. Sub-Inspector of Police, Whenever a magistrate receives a complaint that a person has been arrested within his jurisdiction but has not been brought before him within 24 hours or that a person has been detained within his jurisdiction for more than 24 hours after his arrest, it was said that the magistrate can and should contact the police officer in question to ask whether the allegations are true and, if so, on what and under whose custody he is being held in such a manner. If the officer disputes the arrest, the magistrate may look into the situation and issue the necessary directives.
The Supreme Court has sternly advised the state of Bihar and its police authorities to make sure that this constitutional and legal need to show an apprehended individual before a Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours of the arrest is rigorously adhered to in the case of Khatri (II) v. State of Bihar. This beneficial provision permits the magistrate to keep an eye on the police investigation, hence it is essential that the magistrate endeavours to uphold this obligation and penalize the police severely when it is broken.
CONCLUSION
In the case of DK Basu v. State of West Bengal, our Honourable Supreme Court imposed binding guidelines that the arresting authority must go by when conducting an arrest. Our Indian Constitution guarantees an accused person a natural right, namely the right to an impartial hearing, which is a fundamental human right. No bias should interfere with an accused person’s ability to receive justice. Article 21 of the constitution protects this right as an implicit right. An accused person is given certain rights as an arrested person under Indian law, which upholds the principle of “Innocent until proven guilty,” and these rights cannot be restricted anytime a police officer knocks on the accused person’s door to make an arrest.
It is urgently necessary to make changes to the criminal justice system so that the state will understand that its main responsibility is not to punish wrongdoers but rather to socialize and reform them. Above all, it must be understood that socialization is not the same as punishment because it also includes prevention, education, care, and rehabilitation within the context of social defense. In conclusion, we discover that the Rule of Law governs the operation of every organ of the state apparatus, even the agency in charge of conducting prosecution and inquiry, which is confined to the bounds of the law. It is the responsibility of the police to uphold social rights. It must be kept in mind that everyone is included in this community, even those who have been arrested. Thus, the police must continue to uphold the rights of the person who has been arrested. Consequently, in light of the aforementioned provisions, a police officer must ensure that handcuffs are not used needlessly, that the accused is not harassed needlessly, that the arrested person is made aware of the reasons for his arrest, informed as to whether he is eligible for bail, and of course, that he is produced before a Magistrate within twenty-four hours of his arrest.
REFERENCES