Due Process Can't Be Denied: Bombay High Court Reinforces Rights of Accused Under Article 21

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a woman who runs a private company, was taken into custody by the police due to a criminal complaint related to financial misconduct. The petitioner was the former head of Babaji Date Mahila Sahakari Bank. Her arrest happened post 6.00 pm, which goes against Section 46(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This section outlines specific rules for arresting pre- and post-timings of sunset unless there is a judicial Magistrate's Approval prior. And, there is an exception for exceptional circumstances and unforeseen circumstances. Mahajan stands accused of approving loans totaling Rs. 180 crores, which led to a significant downfall for the cooperative bank in Yavatmal. However, the court pointed out that a mistake that happened in conducting the detention process made her detention unlawful, no matter how serious the charges may be. Not only was the timing questionable, but the arresting officers also failed to include a female police officer, which is required by Section 50 CrPC and various Supreme Court rulings, including D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)^[1]. This was also emphasized in Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983)^[2]. The Issue of the case was the Legality of the arrest conducted after sunset, without a female constable, and without informing relatives, violations of CrPC Sections 46(4) and 50A. The charge in this context was Rs 242 crore loan fraud involving family-linked transactions.

Observations of the High Court

The Nagpur bench firmly stated that even a suspect, not just someone accused or convicted, has “the right to life and personal liberty” as outlined in “Article 21”. The court also emphasized that the presumption of innocence is more than just a procedural detail; it serves as a vital constitutional safeguard against potential state abuses. In no uncertain terms, the Bench denounced the arrest as illegal, arbitrary, and a violation of both statutory and constitutional rights.

The court stated that “A suspect cannot be stripped of her dignity simply because an investigation is in progress. Procedural laws are not just for show; they are essential for upholding the rule of law.”^[3]

The Court instructed the DGP to send out circulars that reinforce adherence to CrPC requirements and Supreme Court decisions regarding the arrest of women, and it called for departmental action against the officers who acted improperly.

Justice Phalke declared that the arrest of Mahajan was 'illegal' because this happened post sunset and did not adhere to the necessary legal requirements mentioned in law. The court also pointed out that the investigative officers did not provide the reasoning for detention or notify the family, which goes against Section 50A of the CrPC^[4], and in the absence of a lady police officer, the arrest occurred. In the case of Prabir Purkayastha v State^[5] Supreme Court held that arrest and remand will be considered as illegal if the accused was not informed regarding the grounds of arrest. The judge emphasized that it is the state's responsibility and the court's duty to guard the citizens' fundamental “right to life and liberty,” which cannot be taken away by noncompliance with the legal procedures in place. She emphasized that any breach of these procedures during an arrest could render the arrest illegal. The court stated that strictly adhere to the guidelines that the CrPC outlines. In reiterating the safeguards for women during arrest, the Bombay Court drew strength from the landmark decision of “Christian Community Welfare Council of India v. State of Maharashtra (1995)^[6]”, where it was categorically held by court which says “no female person shall be detained or arrested without the presence of a lady constable and in no case after sunset and before sunrise”. This ruling formed the bedrock of procedural protections for women, subsequently codified under Section 46(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code through the 2005 amendment.

The Constitutional Angle: Expanding the Scope of Article 21

The judgment adds to the rich tapestry of jurisprudence surrounding “Article 21”, which ensures the “protection of life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” The apex court has widened the meaning of this provision.

- To live with dignity

- against arbitrary arrest and detention

- The right to legal aid

- The right to a fair procedure

The court already explained that arrests should not be conducted as a matter of routine, emphasizing that a lawful arrest must not only be legal but also necessary.^[7] The Current judgment builds on this foundational principle, placing the onus on the police to operate within the law, even during investigations and before any formal accusations.

Legal Significance & Broader Implications

This ruling comes at a crucial time, especially with the rising misuse of arrest powers under the guise of investigations. The distinction between suspects and those formally accused is becoming increasingly unclear, particularly in high–profile financial cases and cybercrimes. Women who are suspects often face degrading treatment, especially in corporate or economic offenses, where arrest is wielded as a tool of coercion. Courts are stepping up to ensure that procedures are followed, showing a growing intolerance for any abuse of power. This case also reignites the conversation around criminal law reform, particularly regarding the ongoing importance of CrPC Sections 41 and 46, and how they relate to Article 21 jurisprudence.

Gender Sensitive Policing and Human Rights

Arresting women without female constables or violating time restrictions is not only illegal, it is also psychologically distressing and degrading. This can also be connected to international human rights standards, such as the UN Bangkok Rules (2010) on the Treatment of Women Prisoners and CEDAW obligations, to which India is a party. These human Rights standards also emphasize the state's duty of care in protecting women from custodial abuse or trauma.

Presumption of innocence & Human Dignity

Article 21 also supports the principle that “every person is innocent until proven guilty. “Mahajan was only a suspect, not yet formally charged, hence entitled to maximum protection. In DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), any form of custodial cruelty or procedural breach violates constitutional rights.

Comparative Jurisprudence

Similar protections exist in other jurisdictions, reinforcing the global consensus on safeguarding the rights of individuals, especially women, during arrest. In the United Kingdom, the police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) lays down detailed procedures to ensure arrests are conducted lawfully and with due regard to the dignity of the individual. PACE includes provisions for gender sensitive arrest protocols, mandating the presence of a female officer during the arrest or search of a woman, and requiring that such procedures be conducted in a manner that minimizes distress and embarrassment.

Strong guidelines against unreasonable seizures and searches are mentioned in the United States Constitution. This is explained in amendment number four. including arbitrary or excessive use of arrest powers. Furthermore, the well-established Miranda rights, derived from the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona (1996)^[8], require that a person taken into custody should be informed of the rights of an accused, like getting legal help and the right to remain silent during interrogation. These international standards highlight that India's constitutional and statutory protections, such as those found in Article 21 and Section 46(4) of the CrPC, are not outliers but rather are consistent with global due process norms. The Bombay High Court's recent reiteration of these protections reflects India's commitment to upholding human dignity, legal accountability, and the rule of law.

Need for Institutional Reform

The Ruling should act as a spark for much-needed administrative training and reform. We urgently need to focus on:

- Raising awareness among law enforcement officers, particularly when it comes to the arrest of women.

- Establishing clear standard operating procedures (SOPs) to make sure that police do not overlook CrPC protections due to “urgency” or “ignorance.”

- Implementing accountability measures, which include documenting the circumstances of arrests and ensuring judicial oversight.

The decision by the Bombay High Court serves as a powerful reminder that constitutional rights are not just privileges for the innocent; they are protections that apply to everyone, whether they are accused, suspected, or even convicted. In a democracy that upholds the rule of law, the way we get to an outcome is just as important as the outcome itself. If courts do not actively uphold these protections, then procedural laws will just be words on a page. This ruling emphasizes that even the most vulnerable individuals should feel the Constitution's protective embrace, especially when the system is using its power against them.

The author is an Advocate ,views are personal.