In this particular case, the court clarified the fundamental distinction between custody and arrest. An arrest would not occur if the subject turned himself in to the magistrate without being taken into custody by the police. If he appears before the court unaccompanied by an attorney and without an arrest, and if the magistrate grants his request for bail, it would constitute custody.
state of haryana v dinesh kumar Case Facts
- The same issue was raised in two appeals, yet distinct decisions were rendered by two synchronized benches of the same High Court. This gave rise to the important legal question of what, in the context of criminal proceedings, constitutes an arrest and custody.
- The two applications that Dinesh Kumar and Lalit Kumar submitted for the job of Constable Driver in the Haryana Police Department were the root of the issue. The application form asked questions about previous arrests and convictions.
- Character and antecedent checks revealed that a small number of applicants had withheld any information pertaining to these issues. Consequently, the aforementioned candidate’s appointments were turned down, which sparked complaints about their dismissal.
- According to Dinesh Kumar’s first appeal and Lalit Kumar’s second, they were freed on bail rather than being taken into custody or arrested.
state of haryana v dinesh kumar Issues
- Could their appearance before the magistrate and their release without being placed under official custody qualify as an arrest for the purposes of the inquiry?
- Is it sufficient for someone to be arrested just for being placed under the custody of an authorized official, and are the terms arrest and custody interchangeable?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The appellants, Dinesh Kumar and Lalit Kumar, claimed that rather of going to the police, they willingly went to the magistrate’s office with their respective attorneys and asked for bail.
- Bail was immediately granted. This resulted in the fact that they were never apprehended or found. It was also reported that they did not get arrested after appearing in court and being released on bail bonds.
- The argument’s central claim was that, given their lack of detection and the dismissal of the case against them, it is reasonable to conclude that there was never any evidence against them.
- This implied that they were not concealing anything by responding “no” to the preceding queries.
Respondent:
- The candidates deliberately misled the selection committee and failed to fulfill their obligations. Complete the information requested on the employment application.
- The candidates were said to have turned themselves up to the court’s custody when they appeared in court. Ignoring the important details also amounted to giving misleading testimony.
state of haryana v dinesh kumar Judgment
- The idea of arrest and custody was noted by the Supreme Court in relation to a criminal case.
- The Court stated that the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) do not define arrest or custody; rather, Section 46(1) and (2) of the CrPC simply make reference to arrest.
- The Court noted that the arrest has two fundamental components: the subject of the arrest must understand that they are being taken into custody and that the arrest is being made with the intent to apprehend or restrict their personal freedom.
- In addition, the Court made an observation regarding custody in relation to section 439 of the crpc, stating that an individual may be in custody for longer than just when they are arrested by the police or brought before a magistrate. When he turns himself in and obeys the court’s orders, it might be said that he is in judicial custody.
- The Court further declared that an individual charged with a crime cannot apply to the Court for bail under section 439 of the crpc unless he is in detention.
- The primary requirement of the section is that the subject must be detained and have his movements restricted in order for him to be eligible for bail under this section.
Thus, under section 439 of crpc, an individual in the physical custody of an official or in the court’s custody is considered to be in custody. Although the word “custody” has multiple meanings, the most widely used one is that the person has been taken over by the law. section 439 of crpc stipulates that the accused must maintain control over the situation or, at the very least, physically appear in court and comply with the court’s orders. Therefore, the case makes clear what does and does not qualify as an arrest or custody.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
