In Vijay Pal Yadav vs Mamta Singh & Ors. [SLP (C) No. 20330/2023], the Supreme Court, on 26 March 2025, held that even a person accused of a crime is entitled to constitutional safeguards under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra condemned the high-handed conduct of the Haryana Police and reiterated that the police, being a vital organ of the State, must act within the bounds of law and protect the dignity of individuals, including those accused of crimes.
Background:
The petitioner alleged that he was subjected to physical abuse by the police, both at the location of the incident and later at the police station, in connection with a dispute involving his neighbour. It was further contended that the arrest violated the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [(2014) 8 SCC 273]. According to the petitioner, an e-mail complaint sent to the Superintendent of Police by his brother at 11:24 AM was met with retaliatory action, resulting in his arrest and registration of an FIR at 1:30 PM.
Arguments:
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the police acted in violation of the law and without proper procedure. He highlighted that the checklist under Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was filled in a perfunctory manner and lacked application of mind. The complaint also raised concerns of custodial violence.
The State of Haryana submitted a compliance affidavit and the Director General of Police, Haryana, was present in Court pursuant to the previous direction dated 12 February 2025. The State also presented the checklist required under CrPC guidelines.
Court’s Analysis and Observations:
The Court found merit in the petitioner’s grievance and expressed concern over the conduct of the police. The Bench noted:
“Even if a person may be a ‘criminal’, the law requires that he be treated in accordance therewith. Even a ‘criminal’, under the law of our land, enjoys certain safeguards in order to ensure protection of his person and dignity. In this case, the petitioner, when picked up by the police, was at best an accused. It is possible to state that a common man can be expected to exceed his limits (whereafter appropriate action in law shall ensue), but not the police.”
The Court remarked that the checklist submitted under Section 41(1)(b)(ii) CrPC “prima facie does not inspire confidence” and appeared to be completed as a mere formality. It strongly cautioned against the mechanical filling of such checklists and directed that Judicial Magistrates should not accept them without due scrutiny.
Directions and Conclusion:
The Court warned the concerned police officers and directed the Director General of Police, Haryana, to ensure non-recurrence of such transgressions. It observed:
“There should be zero-tolerance on behalf of the senior officer(s) with regard to any alleged transgression of authority by any subordinate officer(s).”
The Court further stated that trust in the police is essential for society and that the police must function with integrity and accountability.
The special leave petition was disposed of, with the Court noting that the criminal case was already pending before the competent court and the parties would have access to remedies as per law.
Before concluding, the Court reiterated observations from Somnath v. State of Maharashtra [2023 SCC OnLine SC 338], and directed the Registry to circulate this order along with the Somnath judgment to all Directors General of Police across States and Union Territories, as well as to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi.
