Manish Sisodia Sent To CBI Custody For Not Giving 'Satisfactory Answers': What Have Courts Said On Right Against Self Incrimination & Power To Arrest?

A Court on Monday remanded Aam Aadmi Party leader and Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia to CBI custody for five days in the Delhi liquor policy scam case. Sisodia’s legal team, while opposing CBI’s application seeking custody, laid emphasis on the alleged violation of Section 41 and Section 41-A CrPC.It was also argued that he cannot be remanded to CBI custody for the purposes of recording his confessional statements. “Someone is not willing to say something you want to hear, is no ground for remand,” said Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan before the court of Special Judge M.K. Nagpal.However, the court, while acceding to the request of CBI, sent Sisodia to five days custody of the central agency. Additional Sessions Judge Nagpal observed: “It is true that he cannot be expected to make self incriminating statements, but the interests of justice and of a fair investigation require that he should come up with some legitimate answers to the questions which are being put to him by the IO.”#ManishSisodia can’t be expected to make self incriminating statements, but the interests of justice and of a fair investigation require that he should come up with some legitimate answers to the questions being put to him by CBI: Delhi Courthttps://t.co/EqexltBXUM— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) February 27, 2023Section 41, 41-A CrPCSection 41 gives the police the power to arrest a person in a case of cognizable offence without an order of the magistrate. Section 41-A CrPC on other hand states that the police officer, in the cases where arrest of the accused is not required, shall issue a notice directing that person to appear before him. While it is the duty of the person to comply with the terms of the notice, the law also states that “where such person complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested”.CBI on Monday told the Special Court that Sisodia was made to join investigation on the basis of Section 41A CrPC notices on two occasions but the arrest became necessary as “he was not cooperating in investigation and did not disclose the true facts related to the above conspiracy. The CBI also accused him of giving “evasive replies” to the questions put to him.In Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another, the Supreme Court in 2014 said that police officers must be able to justify the reasons for exercising the power to arrest in cases involving offences punishable for seven years or less. On Magistrate's power to authorise detention, the apex court said that “detention is authorised in a routine, casual and cavalier manner.”“If the arrest effected by the police officer does not satisfy the requirements of Section 41 of the Code, Magistrate is duty bound not to authorise his further detention and release the accused. In other words, when an accused is produced before the Magistrate, the police officer effecting the arrest is required to furnish to the Magistrate, the facts, reasons and its conclusions for arrest and the Magistrate in turn is to be satisfied that condition precedent for arrest under Section 41 Cr.PC has been satisfied and it is only thereafter that he will authorise the detention of an accused,” the Supreme Court said in the rulingThe court in Arnesh Kumar also said that authorising detention without recording reasons will make the judicial Magistrate "liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court."Arnesh Kumar judgement holds the field as far as law regarding the police’s power of arrest is concerned. It was also cited by Sisodia’s lawyers to oppose his custody.In Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau Of Investigation & Anr, the Supreme Court last year said it expects the courts to come down heavily on the officers effecting arrest without due compliance of Section 41 and Section 41A.While emphasising on the police officer’s duty to record the reasons for arrest, the court said consequence of non-compliance with Section 41 shall certainly inure to the benefit of the person suspected of the offence.“Resultantly, while considering the application for enlargement on bail, courts will have to satisfy themselves on the due compliance of this provision. Any non-compliance would entitle the accused to a grant of bail,” the apex court held in Antil’s case.Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Sisodia, on Tuesday before the Supreme Court cited Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil. "If you have called him twice in eight months, where is the need of arrest? The power of arrest doesn't mean compulsion to arrest," said Singhvi.Referring to the remand order, Singhvi said: "Does arrest and co-operation mean that I must incriminate myself. This is a ground unknown to law. When we read criminal law, we were never told that unless I agree to what the investigator is saying ... here it is recorded that I am not...

Manish Sisodia Sent To CBI Custody For Not Giving 'Satisfactory Answers': What Have Courts Said On Right Against Self Incrimination & Power To Arrest?

Sofi Ahsan

Tags