The Madras High Court has declared the arrest and remand of a police inspector illegal in an alleged extortion case involving a ₹24-crore hospital partnership settlement, holding that constitutional safeguards under Articles 21 and 22 cannot be denied to an accused person merely because of the nature of the allegations against him.
A Division Bench of Justice G R Swaminathan and Justice P Murugan, in its October 23 order, directed the immediate and unconditional release of the 46-year-old inspector after finding that the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID) had failed to establish compliance with mandatory arrest procedures.
The Court made it clear that the relief was not bail but release from detention found to be unlawful.
Failure to Communicate Grounds of Arrest
The High Court found serious procedural violations in the inspector’s arrest and subsequent judicial remand. The prosecution had not established that the grounds of arrest were served on him, and the trial magistrate’s records contained no finding confirming such service.
The Bench also criticised the magistrate’s reasoning for rejecting the objection regarding non-communication of the grounds of arrest.
The magistrate had reasoned that the accused was himself a police officer and his wife was a lawyer, and therefore they could obtain the relevant information from officials.
Rejecting this approach, the High Court emphasised that constitutional protections cannot depend on an accused person’s professional background or access to legal assistance.
The Bench reminded the magistrate that Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution protect personal liberty and provide safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention. It stressed that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of these provisions constitutes binding law and must be followed in letter and spirit.
The Court further observed that certain fundamental rights are non-negotiable.
Constitutional Protection Extends to Every Accused Person
The High Court addressed the allegations that the inspector had participated in Kattapanchayat, an illegal and extra-constitutional dispute resolution process.
It held that even a police officer accused of such conduct remains entitled to constitutional protection.
The Bench reasoned that when Articles 21 and 22 are applied to protect the rights of persons accused of terrorism, it would be inequitable to deny the same constitutional safeguards to police officers accused of acting unlawfully.
According to the Court, neither the character of the accused nor the seriousness of the allegations could determine whether the arrest complied with constitutional requirements.
The relevant question was whether the authorities had respected the accused’s legal and constitutional rights while arresting and detaining him.
Dispute Over ₹24-Crore Hospital Settlement
The criminal proceedings arose from a disagreement between two partners of a hospital in Thanjavur.
One partner alleged that the other had arranged for a person to lodge a false complaint against him under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The investigation was subsequently transferred to the CB-CID.
During the dispute, the hospital partners reached an agreement under which one would acquire the other’s partnership interest for ₹24 crore.
Under the settlement, ₹5 crore was paid, while the remaining ₹19 crore was to be paid subsequently.
After the CB-CID assumed responsibility for the investigation, the partner who had made the payment alleged that he had been forced into the agreement. He further claimed that the ₹5 crore payment was intended for the police inspector and his superior officers.
The CB-CID arrested the inspector on October 9 on allegations of extortion, criminal conspiracy and disobedience of law by a public servant.
His bail application was rejected by the trial court on October 16.
The inspector’s wife subsequently approached the High Court through a habeas corpus petition, challenging the legality of her husband’s arrest and detention.
Senior Advocate Sricharan Rangarajan represented the inspector, while Additional Public Prosecutor C Christopher appeared for the State.
Illegal Detention Cannot Continue Even for a Minute
While considering the habeas corpus petition, the Bench referred to the principle articulated by English judge Lord Alfred Thompson Denning that matters concerning personal liberty deserve priority over other judicial business.
The High Court explained that the urgency attached to protecting individual liberty justified deciding the petition without delay.
The Bench observed that even a minute of illegal detention could not be tolerated and that there was nothing objectionable about the immediate disposal of a habeas corpus petition.
Having examined the arrest and remand proceedings, the Court concluded that grave procedural illegalities had rendered both actions unlawful.
It consequently declared the inspector’s arrest, detention and subsequent remand illegal and directed his immediate release without conditions.
The Bench specifically clarified that it was not exercising its power to grant bail but ordering unconditional release because the detention itself was illegal.
