THE police and the judiciary form two sides of the same coin because the former maintains law and order, while the latter upholds justice. If the police fail to comply with Supreme Court judgments or Constitutional safeguards, they fail to maintain law and order. Hence, keeping the accused in the dark about why he has been arrested, violates a vital Constitutional safeguard, resulting in sexual perverts or murderers being acquitted.
In Pune, a 52-year-old teacher accused of sexually assaulting and harassing 39 girls at a school was released from Yerawada Central Prison in February. A special court ruled his December 24, 2024 that the arrest was illegal because the Pune rural police failed to follow proper procedure while arresting him.
Releasing him from jail, the judge said the arrest form mentions his relative was told why he was arrested, “But there is nothing on record to show that written intimation was given to him detailing the reasons for arresting him. The police have not followed the mandatory provisions while arresting a suspect. This detention is illegal and violates the clear mandate of law. It cannot be allowed and the applicant needs to be set free forthwith.” That’s how the judge ruled.
Various governments have set up several police commissions at the State and national level to modernize and train the police. The Standing Committee on Home Affairs also presented a report on police training, modernization, and reforms in 2022. Nevertheless, the police continue to ignore Constitutional provisions during investigation of crimes, thereby ensuring the accused are acquitted or get bail.

INFORMED ARREST
ARTICLE 21 of the Constitution states nobody can be deprived of his right to life and liberty except after following the due procedure laid down by law. Article 22 (1) of the Constitution, emphasizes that informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a fundamental right. The police must not only inform the accused of the reasons for their arrest but their right to bail. “Every police officer arresting without a warrant shall forthwith communicate to the suspect the full particulars of the offense for which s/he is arrested,” the judge noted.
These Constitutional safeguards prevent the police from arresting anybody arbitrarily as in the case of a man who was forced to alight from a train because he resembled the intruder who stabbed Khan at his flat. The man lost his job and the parents of his fiancee’ called off the wedding after the police flashed news of his arrest in the media with his mugshot.
Despite the man protesting he had nothing to do with the stabbing of Saif Ali Khan at his Bandra home, the police detained him and freed him after realising their mistake. By that time, his life had been destroyed forever with the police shrugging their shoulders.
Now, contrast this with the teacher accused of molesting 39 girls in a school in Pune, who was allowed to walk out of Yerawada jail in Pune. We realize that the Pune Police like their Mumbai counterparts bungled. This is why rigorous training sessions should periodically be conducted to hone police skills. In one case, the life of an innocent man was destroyed while in the second case, a suspected pervert was allowed to walk out of jail on bail.

BAIL IS THE RULE
IN India, we have 6.10 lakh prisoners in 1,378 prisons, which is why bail is the rule and jail is the exception, even in the most heinous crimes; because the Supreme Court has devised what is known as the tripod test which lays down that suspects must be granted bail unless they will flee the country, threaten witnesses or destroy evidence of their crime. The Supreme Court granted interim bail to hardened rapists-cum-murderers like Asaram Bapu who fraternized with a former prime minister on stage. So, it can be argued that the teacher who walked out of jail also deserves bail.
But the trauma caused to the 39 minor girls if they see this alleged monster on the road can well be imagined. They will be reluctant to undergo a repeat of this trauma while recounting their experiences all over again in court. This is why those accused of sexual perversion on minor girls must be kept in jail.
The fact that the police officer must also inform the arrested person about his rights after his arrest is important to enable him to brief his lawyer for a fair trial. In Satendar Kumar Antil versus the Central Bureau of Investigation, the judges said hundreds of under-trials need not have been arrested despite registration of a cognizable offense, because the offenses charged were punishable for less than seven years. Some of these under-trial prisoners included women, apart from poor and illiterate people.

MINISTER’S GOLD MEDAL!
CONVERSELY, in Goa, a deputy SP, Kiran Poduval, was later awarded a gold medal, acted at the behest of a minister to allegedly plan a bogus FIR and charge sheet. Even after the high court quashed it, the inquiry report of SP Sunita Sawant, who acted on the orders of the former Dy IGP Aslam Khan, is unavailable. This leads to the conclusion that the police protect themselves.
The Supreme Court declared the high courts must not order further investigation if those seeking it do not furnish more evidence. On the contrary, all high courts should be given a free hand to pull up delinquent police officers who shield criminals on orders of the ruling parties in their states. The high courts should be allowed to supervise investigations because the police come under the government. Corrupt home ministers, like Anil Deshmukh, do summon police commissioners like Parambir Singh with orders to collect Rs100 crore from bars and restaurants.
HENCE, shackling the judiciary to ensure judges do not interfere in police investigations, may not be correct because the judiciary is the only independent organ of the State. Judges must not interfere in investigations as long as they are satisfied that the agencies are not shielding criminals. But if the converse is true, the judges must be free to ask why the agencies have not questioned certain ministers, implicated in crimes.
Corrupt ministers and venal police threaten democracy. That is why the Supreme Court must not shackle the high court judges on the pretext of ensuring free and independent investigations. For investigations are never neutral in a democracy.