Concept of Judicial custody and its necessity, Emphasizing Attitude of Court

Introduction

Over the past few decades, India’s criminal justice system has experienced significant changes, and the court has become increasingly important in defending the rights of the imprisoned. The idea of judicial detention is one such facet of the criminal justice system that needs consideration. The term ‘custody’ comes from the Latin word ‘custodia’ or ‘guardian’. Collins Dictionary defines ‘custody’ as the immediate charge and control exerted by any person or authority. “Custody” refers to the act of taking someone into custody for guardianship. If you are in charge of a room full of children and you notice that one of them is acting in a way that could endanger the other children, you should bind that child’s arms and make him sit apart from the other children. Thus, the idea of apprehending a criminal suspect is to protect other members of the public. “Arrest” and “custody” are not interchangeable terms. While it is true that custody occurs after every arrest, the opposite is untrue. Arresting someone does not mean that they have to stop talking, moving, or blinking their eyes. It is required to physically seize or touch a person’s body in order to make an arrest.

When it comes to criminal offenses, custody is divided into two kinds. The first one refers to the police custody while the other one is judicial custody. Here, the police personnel have physical custody of the accused as in, referred to as police custody. On the other hand, when an accused is in a court magistrate’s custody or simply put under the judiciary’s watchful eyes then it means they are subjected to judicial custody. In cases where there is police custody, a person who has been charged with a crime would be confined within cells at that specific police station involved. In situations when there might be need for judicial custodies, such offenders will be held at any prison.
Ensuring the safety and security of society while an accused person awaits trial is the objective of judicial custody.

The court must make sure that the accused person’s rights are upheld and that they are treated properly, so it has a big part to play in the judicial custody process. The idea of judicial custody has generated a lot of discussion in recent years, with many contending that it is essential to uphold the accused’s rights.

Background

In India, Police May Arrest Anyone as Per the Law Provisions of Section 41 in CrPC An arrest without warrant can be made by police officer subject to satisfaction for being probable culpable under section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPc) that commissions an offence which is punishable by law. The other person who has to abide by the arrest warrant is not, being subjected to 24-hour police custody after being arrested. During this time frame, those accused may be questioned and the police can gather evidence to bolster their accusations. However, if the police need more time to quiz the accused or furnish evidences it can always approach court and seek remand of 15 day.

On the other hand, judicial custody refers to period when accused is kept in a prison under the supervision of the court’s, keeper. If the accused is unable to get bail or if the police have prayed for judicial custody in court, then he can be sent into remand. During this time, the accused is put in jail and it remains responsible for taking care of him.

Restrictions on JUDICIAL CUSTODY:

Ascertain Section 167 of the Crpc An accused may be detained for 15 days in police custody prior to production before magistrate (Section 167).

Then the magistrate can return to his report, and based on it grant further custody in judicial custody upto 60 days maximum thereafter for another period of next 90 days.

The magistrate must determine if the accused was handled properly and whether detention in this respect is justified. One must bear in mind that the courts have to justify every time they extend a police remand.

Prisoners, too have a right to speaking and meeting with their friends & family. The state cannot infringe these rights and deny them, assuming there is a real security or safety concern. Besides, if imprisoned, they also have a right to be educated and trained for a profession or trade — again facilitated by the state providing the materials and facilities needed. That is essential to help in efforts by the inmates themselves upon their release as they transition back into Adam and eve society.

RELIABLE CASE LAWS

Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Investigation Cell-I, New

Delhi v. Anupam J.Kulkarni
The issue of arrest and detention was addressed. It was established that a Magistrate under S.167(2) can grant an accused person’s custody in any form for not more than 15 days altogether. Therefore, the apprehension should initially not exceed more than fifteen days at all. Police or judicial custody, as the magistrate may prefer any detentions.

Kami Sanyal v Dist. Magistrate
Supreme Court observed that “while a person is committed to jail custody by a competent Court by an order, which prima facie does not appear to be without jurisdiction or wholly illegal, a writ of habeas corpus in respect of that person cannot be granted”. the determining date for the legality of detention is when a case is presented in court.
Nijamuddin Mohd. Bashir Khan vs State of Maharashtra
It was held that in any case where the offense carries a sentence of ten years or more, section 167(2)(a)(ii)of CrPC will be applicable and if not conducted within sixty days, no magistrate can extend the accused’s detention.

D. K. Basu V. State of West Bengal

The DK Basu Case shaped how police handle suspects and protect their rights. This case led the Supreme Court to create rules for police to stop violence in custody and safeguard accused persons’ rights. The court set these guidelines:

Police must tell arrested people about their rights. This includes the right to a lawyer and to see a doctor.

Police have to write down in the station’s book who they arrested, who made the arrest, and when it happened.

Police need to tell a friend or family member of the arrested person where they’re being held.

Police have to bring the arrested person to a judge within 24 hours. This doesn’t count travel time to the court.

A doctor must check on the arrested person every 48 hours while they’re held.

State of Rajasthan v. Balchand

In the case of the State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, the Supreme Court held that the purpose of judicial custody is not punitive but only to ensure the presence of the accused person in the court of law during the trial. It held that the magistrate is required to examine each case, send the accused persons to custody only if necessary, and see that he is treated humanely. The Supreme Court of India has also laid down that while a person accused is in custody, he must be ensured not to be put to unnecessary hardship or harassment. He should be also given an opportunity to apply for bail if the person is eligible.

Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar

It was only recently reiterated by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar that a magistrate is required to scrutinize each case prior to granting custody and satisfy himself that it is justified. The Court held, therefore, the last resort is the arrest of an accused, and such arrest ought to be attached with the presumption of innocence. The Supreme Court thus laid emphasis on striking a balance between the interests of the individual accused and society’s interests by noting: “Arrest is a drastic power and it causes humiliation, inconvenience, and public scandal to an innocent person. It is to be exercised cautiously and sparingly and only after great care and circumspection.”

Joginder Kumar vs State of UP

The Supreme Court of India has laid down certain guidelines relating to the arrest and detention of an accused person. The court ruled that every person arrested or detained must be informed about the grounds of arrest, and also it has to provide him the right to legal representation. It was further held that an accused must be produced before a magistrate within a period of 24 hours from arrest. The Supreme Court said: “No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so.”.

Conclusion:
Judicial custody is an integral part of the criminal justice system in India. The only thing that needs to be taken care of is the just treatment of the accused who are lodged in custody and protection of their rights. It is very essential for the judiciary to uphold the principle of personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the detention of an accused must be justified, treating them as humans. These are the landmark case laws which time and again emphasized a balanced approach to the interests of the accused and society in furthering the cause of justice. After all, it is for the State to ensure that the fundamental right of personal liberty engrafted under Article 21 is protected and the concept of judicial custody ought to be exercised with caution and full respect for the rule of law. Restrictions to judicial custody laid down by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code protect the accused against arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty without due process of law. Landmark cases like that of DK Basu, amongst others, have established the importance of protecting the rights of the accused during judicial custody.

It becomes imperative that these guidelines be followed so as to have a fair, just, and protective criminal justice system that protects the rights of all persons. The courts have laid emphasis on the concept of judicial custody and its requirement so that the accused persons are not subjected to any form of custodial violence or torture. It is important to Note that the rights of the accused are not confined to the time of arrest but continue in detention, including in judicial custody.

The net result of the foregoing discussion is that prisoners are bearers of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India, and the state has the corresponding duty to see that they are observed from judicial custody or otherwise.

Closely associated with the concept of judicial custody is prisoners’ rights, many of which come into play during the period under custody. Such rights need protection so that the criminal justice system would be one that is not just and fair but will not also trample upon the dignity and humanity of all human beings.

REFERENCES
https://www.manupatrafast.com/
“Preserving Personal Liberty: An Analysis of Judicial Custody in India under Article 21 of the Constitution and the Role of the Judiciary in Upholding it’’ by Manika Dwivedi.
Judicial custody and police custody – recent trends by SMT. K. sudhamani Judge, family court, Srikakulam.
https://www.livelaw.in/
Laws of Custody in India: – An analysis of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Hariharan Kumar.
Need for Stricter Measures in Custodial Deaths By Drishti IAS