a day ago
Even a suspect entitled to Constitutional protection under Article 21: HC
1
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
