What are the provisions for custody and arrest under BNSS and CrPC?

Introduction

The intertwined concepts of "custody" and "arrest" constitute fundamental pillars of the criminal justice system, reflecting a nuanced interplay between state authority and individual liberties. Arrest pertains to the act of taking an individual into legal custody based on credible suspicion or accusation, while custody encompasses the broader spectrum of detaining an individual for investigation or trial. Importantly, every arrest results in custody, but custody does not invariably imply an arrest. This distinction is critical for dissecting procedural safeguards and delineating the balance between state power and personal freedom.

This article critically analyzes the legislative frameworks governing custody and arrest under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). Through an exploration of statutory provisions and landmark judicial pronouncements, the discussion illuminates how courts have sculpted jurisprudence to address the inherent tension between law enforcement objectives and individual rights.

Types of Custody

Custody serves a multifaceted purpose within the legal architecture, ensuring the accused's presence during proceedings while mitigating risks such as evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or flight. Two primary categories of custody are police custody and judicial custody, which are distinguished by their purposes, limitations, and safeguards.

1. Police Custody

Police custody entails placing the accused under the immediate physical control of law enforcement, typically within a lock-up, to facilitate custodial interrogation and evidence collection. This initial phase is pivotal for advancing investigations but is fraught with potential for abuse. Recognizing this, judicial interventions have imposed strict temporal and procedural limits.

In CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni[1], the Supreme Court emphasized that police custody cannot extend beyond 15 days, underscoring the imperative to protect the accused from prolonged detention and coercive interrogation. The Court in State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar[2] further highlighted the necessity of humane treatment during detention, emphasizing compliance with constitutional safeguards to prevent custodial torture.

The landmark case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal[3] delineated exhaustive guidelines to ensure transparency in arrests and detentions. These include the immediate communication of arrest details to a relative or friend and the presentation of the detainee before a Magistrate within 24 hours, reinforcing Article 22’s protections against arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

2. Judicial Custody

Judicial custody, by contrast, involves the accused being detained in a jail under the supervision of a Magistrate. This form of custody is employed when police custody is no longer necessary, serving primarily to neutralize risks such as evidence tampering or influencing witnesses. In CBI v. Vikas Mishra[4], the Supreme Court underscored the need for meticulous judicial scrutiny in granting custody extensions, highlighting the overarching principle of lawful and justified detention.

In Khatri v. State of Bihar[5], the Court emphasized the Magistrate’s role in ensuring that custody orders are congruent with constitutional guarantees. This case exemplified judicial accountability in precluding abuse and ensuring that the rationale for detention aligns with procedural fairness.

Key Provisions under BNSS and CrPC

The BNSS and CrPC establish a comprehensive framework for governing arrest and custody while embedding safeguards against arbitrary detention. Notable provisions include:

1. Section 58 of BNSS This section mandates the production of an arrested individual before a Magistrate within 24 hours, excluding travel time. This provision aligns with Article 22’s constitutional mandate. In Joginder Kumar v. State of UP[6], the Supreme Court ruled that arrests must be premised on credible information and reasonable suspicion, rather than routine enforcement. The judgment further stressed the necessity of prompt Magistrate production to uphold procedural integrity.

2. Section 187 of BNSS Section 187 elaborates on the extension of custody beyond the initial 24-hour period. Key provisions include:

• Subsection (1): The officer in charge must forward the accused and the case diary to the nearest Magistrate.
• Subsection (2): Magistrates may authorize custody in segments of up to 15 days during the first 40 or 60 days, depending on the offense.
• Subsection (3): Extensions beyond 15 days require sufficient grounds, with maximum detention capped at 90 days for severe offenses and 60 days for others. Bail becomes mandatory upon expiration if the prosecution fails to file charges.

A comparative analysis of BNSS Section 187 and CrPC Section 167 reveals procedural innovations. BNSS allows alternating between police and judicial custody, providing investigative flexibility. However, its failure to explicitly cap police custody duration has engendered judicial concern, as evidenced in V. Senthil Balaji v. State[7].

Judicial Interpretations and Controversies

Judicial interpretations of Section 187 have generated robust discourse. While CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni endorsed stringent custody limitations, CBI v. Vikas Mishra favored procedural flexibility, sparking debates on safeguarding individual liberties versus facilitating investigations.

In Tavaragi Rajashekhar Shiva Prasad v. State of Karnataka[8], procedural deficiencies in Section 41-A CrPC notices were scrutinized. A journalist challenged the legality of a notice that failed to specify the alleged crime. The Karnataka High Court issued comprehensive guidelines mandating clarity and transparency in such notices, including attaching the FIR. This case reinforced procedural fairness as a cornerstone of custodial jurisprudence.

Key Reforms under BNSS

The BNSS incorporates several reforms to address procedural ambiguities and bolster safeguards for individual rights:

1. Arrest of Aged or Infirm Persons: Section 35(7) requires DSP-level approval for arresting individuals over 60 or infirm for minor offenses. This reform ensures that arrests for minor infractions are subject to higher scrutiny, minimizing potential harassment.
2. Nomination for Arrest Intimation: Section 36 expands the scope of intimation, allowing the arrested individual to nominate any person beyond immediate relatives. This broadens the protective framework by accommodating the individual’s personal preference in ensuring timely communication of their arrest.
3. Designated Police Officers: BNSS mandates district- and station-level officers to maintain detailed arrest records, enhancing accountability and creating a robust mechanism to track arrest procedures. This provision seeks to mitigate arbitrary practices and ensure adherence to statutory norms.
4. Use of Handcuffs: Section 43(3) restricts handcuffing to grave offenses, ensuring compliance with human dignity and limiting the indiscriminate use of this restraint. Judicial precedents, such as Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration[9], emphasized the need for handcuffing to be an exception rather than the rule, reinforcing this statutory safeguard.
5. Medical Examinations: Section 51 mandates prompt medical examinations to document custodial conditions and deter abuse. This ensures transparency and offers recourse in instances of custodial violence or negligence.
6. Concerns with Section 187 of BNSS Despite its progressive attributes, Section 187 raises critical concerns:
7. Extended Police Custody: While extended custody may streamline investigations, it risks violating individual rights. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar[10], the Supreme Court emphasized strict procedural adherence to mitigate arbitrary detention. The potential for misuse of extended custody underscores the need for stringent oversight and judicial intervention.
8. Ambiguity in Drafting: The absence of explicit caps on police custody duration undermines legislative clarity, necessitating judicial intervention. In V. Senthil Balaji, the judiciary highlighted the need for amendments to address these ambiguities. Legislative refinements must strike a balance between investigative efficiency and the protection of fundamental rights.

Conclusion

BNSS represents a significant evolution in custodial jurisprudence, introducing procedural flexibility while embedding safeguards to uphold individual rights. However, ambiguities in critical provisions like Section 187 necessitate legislative refinements and judicial oversight. Landmark judgments such as Joginder Kumar v. State of UP and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal continues to illuminate the path toward a balanced framework that harmonizes prosecutorial efficiency with constitutional principles of liberty and fairness.

While the BNSS marks a progressive step forward, the evolving landscape of custodial jurisprudence demands constant vigilance. Judicial clarifications and legislative amendments must address loopholes and ambiguities to ensure that reforms translate into tangible protections. By drawing on constitutional principles and robust jurisprudence, India can foster a criminal justice system that secures both state interests and individual freedoms, achieving the delicate equilibrium envisioned by its framers.

[1] (1992) 3 SCC 141.

[2] (2011) 14 SCC 770

[3] 1997 AIR SCW 233.

[4] Criminal Appeal No. 957 Of 2023.

[5] 1981 SCR (2) 408.

[6] [1994] 3 S.C.R. 661.

[7] Crl.O.P.No.1525 of 2024.

[8] 2024 (KAR) 344.

[9] AIR 1980 SC 1535.

[10] 2014 AIR SCW 3930.

Download