Not Challenging Arrest Or Remand Amounts To Acquiescence: Patna High Court Refuses Compensation for Illegal Detention

The Patna High Court has held that failure to challenge an order of arrest or remand before the appropriate court amounts to acquiescence, and a person cannot subsequently claim compensation alleging illegal detention.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar was hearing a writ petition seeking a declaration that the petitioner's detention by Sonepur Police Station from 30.07.2020 to 01.08.2020 was illegal, along with a claim for compensation.

The petitioner contended that he was kept in illegal custody for three days without any FIR or legal justification. He submitted that although FIR No. 574 of 2020 was registered on 01.08.2020 under Sections 341, 323, 379, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, he had been taken into custody earlier on 30.07.2020. He was produced before the Judicial Magistrate on 02.08.2020 and remanded to judicial custody. He further argued that the offences carried a maximum punishment of three years and therefore the police were required to follow the arrest guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.

The State opposed the plea, submitting that the petitioner was not arrested on 30.07.2020 but was only summoned for inquiry based on a written complaint. It was contended that he was arrested only after registration of the FIR on 01.08.2020 and was produced before the Magistrate the following day. The State further pointed out that the Bihar Human Rights Commission had directed an inquiry into the petitioner's allegations, which found no illegality.

The High Court noted that there was nothing on record to establish that the petitioner was arrested on 30.07.2020, and that he had been formally arrested on 01.08.2020 and remanded to judicial custody on 02.08.2020 by a competent court. The Court observed that although there appeared to be prima facie non-compliance with the Supreme Court's directions in Arnesh Kumar, the petitioner had not challenged the arrest or remand order before any court. Instead, he applied for regular bail, which was granted.

The Court held that this failure to challenge the remand order rendered the arrest legally valid and that the petitioner's conduct in seeking bail amounted to acquiescence in the legality of his detention. In such circumstances, the petitioner could not subsequently claim that his detention was illegal or seek compensation on that basis. The Court noted:

“Hence, timing of challenging the arrest or remand subsequently is wrong. Had the petitioner come prior to filing of regular bail petition and just after remand by learned Judicial Magistrate, the Writ Court could have looked into the compliance of direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court by the police or even learned Judicial Magistrate at the time of remand. But now that time has passed and this is not the stage to look into the compliance with the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Case (supra), either by the police or by the learned Judicial Magistrate. It is too late to look into such plea taken by the petitioner. Hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.”

While dismissing the petition, the High Court clarified that it was not approving the conduct of the police officers or the Judicial Magistrate in the case. The Court observed, upon perusal of the case diary, that the concerned police officer appeared to be completely oblivious to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, particularly regarding arrest in offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years. The Court further noted that the Judicial Magistrate also appeared to have overlooked these binding guidelines, and had the case diary been properly examined, the remand could have been refused as there was no indication of compliance with the Supreme Court's directions.

Taking serious note of this lapse, the Court directed the Registrar General to circulate a copy of the order among all judicial officers. The Court also directed that a copy be sent to the Director General of Police, Bihar, for circulation among police officials, noting that despite repeated directions from the Supreme Court, the High Court, and existing government guidelines, police authorities were continuing to disregard the mandate laid down in Arnesh Kumar while effecting arrests.

Case Title: Lallan Kumar Yadav v. State of Bihar and Ors.

Case Number: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1049 of 2021.

Appearance: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma appeared for the Petitioner. Md. Nasrul Huda Khan and Md. Fazle Karim appeared for the State.

Click Here To Read/Downlod Order