Even a suspect entitled to Constitutional protection under Article 21: HC
2
3
Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay high court has recently ruled that the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution extends to suspects as well and cannot be curtailed without due process.
It made this strong observation while granting bail to Sujata Mahajan, former CEO of Babaji Date Mahila Sahakari Bank, who was arrested after sunset in a Rs242-crore loan fraud case.
Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke held that Mahajan's arrest was 'illegal' as it was carried out after sunset without complying with statutory safeguards under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The judge said the police failed to disclose the grounds of arrest or inform her relatives, violating Section 50A of the CrPC, and arrested her without a woman constable present.
"The guarantee of 'life and liberty' as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India available to a citizen of this country cannot be denied even to an accused who is in custody and surely not to a suspect who is sought to be converted to an accused on an investigation, and then from an accused to a convict on trial," the court stated.
Mahajan is accused of sanctioning loans amounting to Rs1.80 crore to her husband and relatives, which contributed to massive losses to the Yavatmal-based cooperative bank.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Cách giao dịch ETH/USD mà không cần nắm giữ Ether
IC Markets
Tìm hiểu thêm
Undo
However, the court emphasised that procedural lapses in her arrest rendered the detention unlawful, regardless of the gravity of the charges.
"It is an obligation upon the state as well as on the court to ensure that there is no infringement of the indefeasible right of the citizen to life and liberty, which he cannot be deprived of without following the procedure established by law," the judge added.
She pointed out that any violation of the prescribed procedure in arrest makes it liable to be declared illegal.
"The CrPC describes the manner and the extent to which a person can be denuded of his liberty and, therefore, needs strict compliance," the court said.
Referring to the landmark 1995 ruling in Christian Community Welfare Council of India versus State of Maharashtra, the court reiterated that "no female person shall be detained or arrested without the presence of a lady constable and in no case after sunset and before sunrise," unless in exceptional circumstances and with prior judicial approval.
The court said these directives were aimed at balancing the protection of a detainee's rights with the powers of law enforcement agencies. It added that Section 46(4) of the CrPC, introduced after the 2005 amendment to the MPID Act, mandates these conditions, and they were not followed in Mahajan's case.
BOX
Key Takeaways from HC Ruling:
- Arrest of a woman after sunset without judicial permission is illegal
- Petitioner woman's arrest was held unlawful due to procedural lapses
- Police failed to inform her relatives as mandated under Section 50A of CrPC
- No woman constable was present during the arrest, violating legal safeguards
- Section 46(4) of CrPC bars arrest of women after sunset unless in exceptional cases
- Court cited 1995 HC ruling prohibiting such arrests without a magistrate's sanction
- Rights of detainees must be balanced with the powers of law enforcement, HC said
- Bail was granted despite serious charges due to illegality of the arrest
- Stressed strict adherence to arrest protocols to uphold liberty
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
12 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC affirms life term for murder convict, urges Governor to consider pardon
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the life imprisonment of a woman lawyer and her three associates for the 2003 murder of her fiancé, but called on the Karnataka governor to consider their pleas for pardon, observing that society itself cannot escape responsibility for the deviant behavior it often helps shape. The 132-page judgment delved into the possible causes of crime, particularly when it arises from emotional rebellion, systemic inequity and gendered oppression (ANI) A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, while affirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the Karnataka High Court to advocate Shubha Shankarnarayan (42) and her three co-accused, delved deep into the sociological underpinnings of criminality and appealed for compassion, transformation and community responsibility. 'Society, through its own systemic failures, inequalities, or neglect often plays a role in shaping criminal behavior,' the bench said, adding that the responsibility of reintegrating and rehabilitating such offenders must also be borne by the society that may have contributed to their alienation. Shubha, daughter of a prominent Bangalore-based lawyer, was engaged to software engineer BV Girish on November 30, 2003. Four days later, on December 3, she asked Girish to take her out for dinner and then insisted on stopping at a spot on the Indiranagar-Koramangala Intermediate Ring Road to watch airplanes land. There, Girish was attacked and murdered by Arun Verma, Shubha's alleged boyfriend and two of his accomplices. All four were convicted by the trial court and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2010. After the high court affirmed their conviction, they had moved the Supreme Court assailing the verdict, which the top court dismissed on Monday. The bench held that the evidence on record was sufficient and endorsed the concurrent findings of the lower courts. Even as it upheld the conviction, the top court refused to end its intervention at a purely punitive level. Citing 161 of the Constitution that vests the power of pardon in the governor, it urged that a broader view of justice be taken in light of the passage of time and subsequent conduct of the convicts. 'The appellants, who committed the offence with adrenaline pumping in their veins, have now reached middle age… They were not born as criminals, but it was an error of judgment through a dangerous adventure,' said the court, adding that none of the four had attracted any adverse conduct reports from jail authorities since their conviction. Accordingly, the court granted the convicts eight weeks to file appropriate petitions seeking pardon under Article 161. It directed that they shall not be arrested and their sentence shall remain suspended until the governor has considered their mercy plea. The 132-page judgment delved into the possible causes of crime, particularly when it arises from emotional rebellion, systemic inequity and gendered oppression. Describing the internal turmoil of Shubha, it noted: 'The voice of a young ambitious girl, muffled by a forced family decision, created the fiercest of turmoil in her mind… backed by an unholy alliance of a mental rebellion and wild romanticism, (it) led to the tragic murder of an innocent young man.' Crime, Justice Sundresh wrote, must be seen not merely as an individual's deviance but as an outcome of multiple interlinked social and psychological factors. 'A crime constitutes a mental rebellion of norms and rules…triggered by causes which are both distant and immediate…The offender becomes a victim, requiring adequate measures for treatment by compassionate correction, structural support, and opportunities for genuine transformation,' said the bench, highlighting the need to move beyond retributive justice. Importantly, the court made a special mention of the gendered dimensions of criminal behaviour and societal control. Referring to the predicament of a young woman forced into an unwanted marriage and denied autonomy, the court observed: 'An unwarranted marriage thrust upon her is the worst form of alienation that she can experience both mentally and physically… A forced marriage, divorcing her from her professional ambitions and curtailing her further education, would certainly warrant a reaction. Such reactions would vary from one woman to another, depending upon the circumstances.'
Hindustan Times
13 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
HC seeks U.P. govt reply in plea on implementation of SC guidelines
: The Allahabad high court has directed the state government to file a better counter-affidavit (reply) with regard to compliance with the Supreme Court's guidelines/directions laid down in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018) on preventing and addressing incidents of mob lynching and mob violence. The present petition seeks a probe into the alleged incident by a special investigating team (SIT) and ₹ 50 lakh as compensation for the family of the deceased. (File Photo) A division bench comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Avnish Saxena sought the affidavit while dealing with a petition filed by the brother of a 37-year-old man killed on suspicion of slaughtering cattle in Uttar Pradesh's Moradabad district last year. The present petition seeks a probe into the alleged incident by a special investigating team (SIT) and ₹50 lakh as compensation for the family of the deceased. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the state had not implemented the mandatory safeguards outlined in the Tehseen Poonawalla ruling, which were mentioned as remedial measures, including the top court's directions regarding prompt FIR registration, nodal officer oversight, timely charge sheet filing and compensation. The high court, in its order, recorded that only the investigating officer had filed a counter-affidavit in the matter, and the U.P. government had not shown any steps taken in line with the binding directions of the apex court. 'Thus, the division bench remarked that the U.P. government should file a better counter affidavit/compliance affidavit keeping in view the directions of the apex court in the case of Tehseen S. Poonawalla within a period of three weeks,' the bench observed. Noting that the FIR should have been lodged by the police under Section 103(2) of the BNS (mob lynching) but was instead registered under Section 103(1) (Murder), the court stayed the investigation in the FIR until the next date of hearing. The court, in its order dated July 10, directed that the matter will now be heard next on August 5. In the present writ petition, the petitioner alleged that the state government has failed to formulate a Lynching/Mob Violence Compensation Scheme in compliance with the provisions of Section 357A of the criminal procedure code (CrPC), despite the explicit and binding direction in the Tehseen Poonawalla case, which constitutes 'grave' and 'wilful' violation of the rule of law. The petition also requested the court to direct the U.P. government to take disciplinary action against the police officials involved in the matter, as per the Supreme Court's directions to ensure accountability. It also requested the court to direct the government of India to launch public awareness campaigns against mob violence and lynching, highlighting legal consequences, as directed by the Supreme Court. At around 3 am on December 30 last year, Shahedeen and a few others were allegedly caught by a mob for slaughtering a cow for meat. While the others managed to flee, Shahedeen was left behind and was brutally beaten by the mob for nearly an hour. He succumbed to the injuries the next day. Later, Moradabad police booked Shahedeen and his alleged accomplices under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act.
Time of India
26 minutes ago
- Time of India
Tesla's long-awaited India debut bets on luxury vehicle buyers
Tesla Inc. is opening its first India showroom as Elon Musk 's electric-vehicle maker looks to ply new markets and offset slowing sales where it's already well established. A 4,000-square-foot space in Mumbai's posh financial district of Bandra Kurla Complex will open its doors on Tuesday. It'll showcase Model Y crossovers made in China with an expected sticker price of more than $56,000 before taxes and insurance, Bloomberg News reported last month. That's about $10,000 more than the vehicle's starting price in the US without a federal tax credit. Also Read: Tesla almost here in 'toughest car market', but not the way India's policymakers wanted by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Cikupa: Pendingin udara tanpa unit luar. (Klik untuk melihat harga) Tonton Sekarang Undo A second showroom is expected to open in New Delhi by the end of July, and Tesla has beefed up local hiring and secured warehousing space. But with no plans to set up a manufacturing plant in the world's third-largest automobile market, Tesla's entry into India is less about racking up immediate sales volume gains and more about gaging demand for its EVs and building up the brand's image. 'It's not meaningful from a volume standpoint yet,' said Jay Kale, a Mumbai-based analyst at Elara Securities. 'But it plants the brand. Over time, as charging infrastructure improves and the lineup expands, Tesla could scale.' Live Events The long-anticipated move comes as Tesla faces challenges in China and the US, its two core markets. The company's sales fell last quarter and it's anxious to avoid a second year of declines after a dismal 2024. The American EV maker has been ceding ground globally to Chinese rival BYD Co. and India represents an opportunity to grow in a relatively untapped market — due in part to a gamut of protectionist barriers. Bloomberg While the Model Y is the world's top-selling electric car, few Indians will be able to afford one. The country's EV penetration remains under 5%, and luxury cars make up just 1% of total vehicle sales. Tesla will compete mostly with German luxury carmakers such as BMW and Mercedes-Benz Group AG, not mass-market budget-car players like Tata Motors Ltd. , Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. and MG Motor India Pvt. Musk's company has flirted with the idea of establishing a local manufacturing base — something the Indian government has courted and that could sidestep heavy import tariffs — but so far Tesla hasn't committed to doing so. India is currently negotiating a trade deal with the US, including a potential reduction in tariffs on automobiles — something Musk has been seeking for years. It's unclear what impact, if any, the Tesla chief executive officer's newly strained relationship with US President Donald Trump may have on his company's lobbying efforts to lower Indian trade barriers. The Tesla brand's debut in India follows the resignation in May of its former head of operations in the country. But the Mumbai showroom launch is expected to follow Tesla's playbook from its early days in China, where marketing buzz preceded an eventual manufacturing investment and sales blitz.
