Arrest, bail and custody
When police may arrest, how bail works and the safeguards in custody.
15 of the 22 judgments in our library on this topic: the ones other judgments here cite most, oldest first.
0 of 15 read
Start: A.K. Gopalan v. State of MadrasYour progress is kept in this browser. Sign in to keep it on every device and count it in your reading streak.
19 May 1950 · 6 judges · cited by 2 judgments in this library
A.K. Gopalan v. State of MadrasThe majority upheld the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, except Section 14, holding that 'law' in Article 21 means State-made law and that preventive detention is not tested under Article 19; the habeas corpus petition was dismissed.
On this path for: Article 22, Constitution
7 April 1978 · 3 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. DaniThe Court held that Article 20(3) and Section 161(2) CrPC protect an accused during police interrogation, cover exposure to other pending or imminent charges, and bar psychologically compelled answers; the Section 179 IPC prosecution was quashed.
On this path for: Article 22(1), Constitution
9 April 1980 · 5 judges · cited by 2 judgments in this library
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of PunjabThe Constitution Bench held that the discretion of the High Court and Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is wide and must not be cut down by reading in limitations the legislature did not impose.
On this path for: Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
24 March 1993 · 3 judges · cited by 3 judgments in this library
Nilabati Behera v. State of OrissaCompensation under Articles 32 and 226 for violation of fundamental rights is a public law remedy based on strict liability, to which sovereign immunity does not apply; Orissa was ordered to pay Rs. 1,50,000 for a custodial death.
On this path for: Custodial death
2 December 2010 · 2 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of MaharashtraFollowing the Constitution Bench in Sibbia, anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC need not be confined to exceptional cases or limited in time, and ordinarily continues till the end of the trial unless cancelled.
On this path for: Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Anticipatory bail
12 November 2013 · 5 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar PradeshRegistration of an FIR under Section 154 CrPC is mandatory when the information discloses a cognizable offence; a limited preliminary inquiry is allowed only to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed, in specified kinds of cases.
On this path for: Section 41, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
2 July 2014 · 2 judges · cited by 2 judgments in this library
Arnesh Kumar v. State of BiharPolice must not arrest automatically for offences punishable with up to seven years; they must record why arrest is necessary under Section 41 CrPC, and Magistrates must scrutinise those reasons before authorising detention.
On this path for: Section 41, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 41A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
23 November 2017 · 2 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of IndiaThe Court declared Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, insofar as it imposed two further conditions for bail, unconstitutional as violating Articles 14 and 21, and remanded the bail matters.
On this path for: Bail
29 January 2020 · 5 judges
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC need not be limited to a fixed period and may continue till the end of trial, though courts may impose conditions, including limits on time, where the facts of a case require.
On this path for: Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
11 July 2022 · 2 judges
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of InvestigationReaffirming that bail is the rule and jail the exception, the Court explained the bail provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, adopted a categorisation of offences for bail, and issued directions to investigating agencies, courts and governments.
On this path for: Section 41, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 41A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
27 July 2022 · 3 judges
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of IndiaThe Court upheld the challenged PMLA provisions, including Sections 5, 19, 24, 45 and 50, read down the proviso to Section 44(1)(a), gave Section 3 a wide reading, and held that ED officers are not police officers.
On this path for: Twin conditions for bail
7 February 2025 · 2 judges
Vihaan Kumar v. State of HaryanaInforming an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1); failure to do so vitiates the arrest and remand, and the appellant was ordered to be released forthwith.
On this path for: Article 22(1), Constitution; Section 41(1)(ba), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Grounds of arrest
6 November 2025 · 2 judges
Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of MaharashtraGrounds of arrest must be given to every arrestee, for offences under all statutes, in writing in a language the arrestee understands; where impractical at arrest, oral grounds suffice if written grounds follow at least two hours before remand production.
On this path for: Article 22(1), Constitution; Grounds of arrest; Arrest and remand
21 September 2026 · 2 judges
Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of PunjabAn accused released because his arrest breached Article 22(1) or 22(2) cannot be re-arrested at the police's discretion; re-arrest needs a Magistrate's order on an endorsed custody application made after written grounds of arrest are supplied.
On this path for: Article 22, Constitution; Grounds of arrest; Re-arrest
29 September 2026 · 2 judges
Mulla Afroz v. Union of IndiaA confession to the police cannot by itself ground preventive detention; the NSA detention, resting on an involuntary confession and undisclosed material and aimed at defeating bail, was quashed with costs of Rs. 10 lakh on the State.
On this path for: Article 22, Constitution; Detention to defeat bail
Test yourself: 170 practice questions on landmark judgments, with explanations.