Formal arrest, remand cannot cure illegal detention: HC

The court ordered the release of Prayagraj resident Ravi Chaurasiya, who was kept in police custody for nearly 31 hours before being formally arrested, and awarded him ₹30,000 compensation to be recovered from those responsible for his illegal detention.

The Allahabad high court has held that a subsequent formal arrest and remand cannot legitimise an earlier illegal detention, applying the US legal doctrine of “fruit of the poisonous tree” to constitutional safeguards under Articles 21 and 22.

The court also directed the Prayagraj commissioner to conduct an inquiry and fix responsibility for the illegal detention. (For representation)

The court ordered the release of Prayagraj resident Ravi Chaurasiya, who was kept in police custody for nearly 31 hours before being formally arrested, and awarded him ₹30,000 compensation to be recovered from those responsible for his illegal detention.

A division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev passed the order while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by Chaurasiya. The court also directed the Prayagraj commissioner to conduct an inquiry and fix responsibility for the illegal detention.

It held that if the initial detention was unlawful, the subsequent arrest and remand proceedings arising from it would also be vitiated, even if the arrest was otherwise supported by valid grounds.

In its September 28 judgment, the court also recorded its displeasure with the conduct of the Soraon SHO. It directed that if the inquiry found negligence on his part, the court’s displeasure should be entered in his service record.

According to the case, Chaurasiya was taken into police custody from Ayodhya on September 14 and brought to Soraon police station, but his arrest was not recorded at the time. His mother visited the police station on September 15 to ascertain his whereabouts, following which she approached the high court with a habeas corpus petition alleging illegal detention.

The police formally arrested him at 10:45 am on September 16, recorded the arrest in the general diary, conducted his medical examination and produced him before a magistrate, who remanded him to judicial custody.

The high court had called for CCTV footage from the police station. However, it noted that the counter-affidavit filed by the station house officer and investigating officer itself admitted that Chaurasiya had been in police custody. The SHO attributed the failure to record his presence in the general diary to an inadvertent mistake.

The court rejected the explanation, observing that an experienced police officer could not have failed to make a general diary entry recording that Chaurasiya had been brought to the police station and lodged in the lock-up.

The court noted that the formal arrest was made on September 16 after police became aware of the habeas corpus petition filed the previous day. It concluded that Chaurasiya had remained in police custody for more than 24 hours without being produced before a magistrate for remand.

The court examined the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, which originated in American criminal jurisprudence, and held that it could apply to detention and arrest.

It explained that the initial unlawful detention constituted the “poisonous tree”, while the subsequent arrest and remand proceedings flowing from it constituted its “fruit”. Since the arrest followed an unlawful detention that violated the accused’s rights under Article 22, the court held that the arrest and subsequent remand were also rendered unlawful.

The bench also relied on the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab, noting that an arrest found unconstitutional for violating Article 22(1) would vitiate subsequent remand orders.

The court, however, clarified that police could re-arrest Chaurasiya in accordance with law and the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court. It directed that he be released forthwith if he was not wanted in any other case.