Skip to main content

Inter-State Arrests and the Cost of Ignoring Due Process

Image

The Delhi High Court’s judgment authored by Dr. Justice Murlidhar, as he then was, in Sandeep Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), WP (Crl.) 2189/2018, neutral citation: 2019:DHC:6920-DB, is a clear reminder that problems in policing often arise not because the law is unclear, but because basic legal safeguards are ignored. The case shows how easily police action can cross constitutional limits when procedure is treated as a technicality rather than a duty.


When a Complaint Turns into Illegal Detention 

The case arose from an interfaith marriage between two adults who married of their own free will. The woman’s family opposed the marriage, and soon an FIR alleging kidnapping under Section 366 IPC was lodged in Uttar Pradesh. Acting on this, UP Police travelled to Delhi, entered the JNU campus, and took both the husband and wife back to Ghaziabad. None of the basic legal steps was followed. The local Delhi Police were not informed. No proper diary entries were made. The husband was not produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours. Most troubling, the woman, an adult, was handed over to her parents despite repeatedly stating that she wished to stay with her husband.


Due Process Cannot Be Bypassed

The High Court made it clear that police officers cannot cross State borders and make arrests or “recoveries” as they please. The Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 22(2) of the Constitution require coordination with local police, documentation of police movements, compliance with arrest procedures, and prompt judicial oversight. The Court also rejected the idea that police can “recover” an adult woman simply because her family disapproves of her marriage. An adult woman has the right to choose where she lives and with whom. Police interference in such matters amounts to a violation of personal liberty. Another important clarification made by the Court was on custody. The Court held that custody begins the moment a person’s freedom is restricted. Forcing someone into a police vehicle and taking them to a police station is detention, even if no formal arrest memo is prepared.


A Pattern of Police Misconduct

Recognising that the incident was not an isolated lapse, the Court appointed an independent enquiry committee. The committee found serious wrongdoing: false diary entries, fabricated recovery stories, and suppression of facts. These findings showed that the violations were not accidental but deliberate.

The Court directed that the enquiry report be treated as prima facie material for disciplinary action against the officers involved, sending a strong message on police accountability.


Clear Rules for Inter-State Arrests 

One of the most important outcomes of the judgment is the Court’s approval of detailed guidelines for inter-State arrests. These rules require police officers to seek approval from senior officers, coordinate with local police, prefer arrest warrants where possible, follow transit remand procedures, and ensure that Magistrates carefully examine the need for custody. By directing police authorities to formally adopt these guidelines, the Court ensured that they are not merely advisory but binding in practice.


Compensation for Loss of Liberty

The Court also reaffirmed that illegal arrest and detention attract compensation under public law. Even if the person is later released, the violation of fundamental rights does not disappear. The State is responsible for the actions of its police officers and must compensate victims of illegal detention. In this case, the couple was directed to be paid Rs. 50,000/- each as compensation by the State of Uttar Pradesh.


Why the Judgment Matters

The Sandeep Kumar judgment matters because it addresses a recurring problem in Indian policing, misuse of criminal law in family and marriage disputes, especially in interfaith relationships. It strengthens protection for adult choice, reinforces limits on police power, and makes it clear that crossing State borders does not mean crossing constitutional boundaries. Above all, the decision reminds law enforcement agencies that procedure is not an obstacle to justice; it is its foundation.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

All Cases of Sexual Intercourse Based on a False Promise of Marriage NOT Covered under Section 69 of the BNS

Recently, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against Yash Dayal, a Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB) player, under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for engaging in sexual intercourse on the false pretext of marriage. The complainant alleged that, relying on Yash Dayal’s false promise of marriage, she consented to sexual intercourse. Notably, the FIR was not registered under Section 64 (rape) of the BNS. This raises the question: Are all cases of sexual intercourse based on a false promise of marriage (vitiated consent) now exclusively covered under Section 69 of the BNS? Prior to the enactment of the BNS, sexual intercourse induced by a false promise of marriage was punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and classified as rape. This classification stemmed from Section 375 of the IPC, which defines rape as, inter alia, sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent, and Section 90, which states that consent given under a misconceptio...
Post a Comment
Read more

Requirements for Criminal Liability under Sections 406 and 420 IPC

The Supreme Court of India’s judgment in Ashok Kumar Jain v. The State of Gujarat and Another (2025 INSC 614), delivered on May 1, 2025, is a significant exposition on the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), to quash a First Information Report (FIR) in cases where allegations of criminal breach of trust and cheating under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are deemed to be a misuse of criminal process for civil disputes. The judgment meticulously analyzes the alleged offenses' legal ingredients, the commercial transaction's factual matrix, and the documentary evidence, ultimately concluding that the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process. Factual Background The case arises from a commercial transaction between the appellant, Ashok Kumar Jain, a director of Maayu Import and Export Ltd., a Sri Lankan company, and the second respondent, a proprietor of Ansh Prints, a textile business in Surat, Gujara...
Post a Comment
Read more

Advocates Vs. CAs/CSs/CMAs

This article deals with the exclusive right to practise law and tribunal representation and the principles relating to a Harmonious Construction of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Companies Act, 2013 Introduction  The ongoing controversy concerning the right of non-advocate professionals, namely Chartered Accountants(CAs), Company Secretaries(CSs), and Cost and Management Accountants(CMAs), to appear and argue matters before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) raises fundamental questions touching the statutory monopoly over the practice of law in India. This post examines the competing statutory claims under the Advocates Act, 1961 and Section 432 of the Companies Act, 2013, applies the doctrine of harmonious construction, and concludes that Section 432 does not, and constitutionally cannot, confer any independent or parallel right to practise law upon non-advocates before tribunals. Background of the Dispute Recently, t...
Post a Comment
Read more