Subhra CRPC

Case Analysis of Jogender Kumar v.
State off Uttar

Pradesh (1994)
Name: S. Subhrajita
Registration number: 2341803010
SNIL LLB(H) 1st Year
Criminal Procedural Code
Submitted to: Ms. Krishna Panda

Citations:
1. 1994 AIR 1349
2. 1994 SCC (4) 260
3. AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 1349
4. 1994 (4) SCC 260
5. 1994 AIR SCW 1633
6. 1994 AIR SCW 820
7. 1994 AIR SCW 1651
8. 1994 AIR SCW 816
9. 1994 AIR SCW 1886
10. 1994 (1) FAC 8
Introduction to the Case:

Introduction to a study of the Joginder Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh case.
This historic decision by the Supreme Court of India addresses the critical
subject of custodial fatalities and establishes criteria for preventing such events.
The case is around the death of Joginder Kumar, who was in police custody.
Custodial violence and abuse were common during that time, resulting in a
violation of fundamental rights and human dignity. The court recognised the
critical necessity to protect the rights of those arrested and avoid abuse by law
enforcement agents.
This case concerns the death of Joginder Kumar while in police custody.
Custodial violence and abuse were common during that time, resulting in a
violation of fundamental rights and human dignity.
The court acknowledged the urgent necessity to protect the rights of arrested
individuals and avoid abuse by law enforcement agents.
Facts of the Case:
• Jogender Kumar, the appellant, was a The petitioner was a young man of 28
years of age who had completed his LL.B. and had enrolled himself as an
advocate.
• The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, Respondent 4 called the

petitioner in his office for making enquiries in some case.
• The petitioner on 7-1-1994 at about 10 o'clock appeared personally along with

his four brothers before Respondent 4. Respondent 4 kept the petitioner in his
custody. When the brother of the petitioner made enquiries about the petitioner,
lie was told that the petitioner will be set free in the evening after making some
enquiries in connection with a case.
• However, instead of just a discussion, Jogendra Kumar was detained by the

police.
On 7-1-1994 at about 12.55 p.m., the brother of the petitioner being

apprehensive of the intentions of Respondent 4, sent a telegram to the Chief
Minister of U.P. apprehending his brother's implication in some criminal case
and also further apprehending the petitioner being shot dead in fake encounter.
Concerned about the extended detention, Jogendra Kumar's brother sent a

telegram to the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh fearing for his safety.
On 9-1-1994, in the evening when the brother of petitioner along with relatives
went to P.S. Mussoorie to enquire about the well-being of his brother, it was
found that the petitioner had been taken to some other destination
Issues of the Case:

Unlawful Detention
Violation of fundamental rights
Abuse of police power
Lack of transparency
The need for guidelines to regulate the power of arrest and protect the rights of
individuals
Contentions Put Forth:
Arguments by Petitioner:
Jogendra Kumar's lawyers likely argued that his detention after responding to
the police summons was illegal. He had complied with the request to appear at
the station and there was no justification for holding him beyond a reasonable
inquiry.
It was argued that the police lacked reasonable suspicion of Jogendra Kumar's
involvement in any offense. A mere summons shouldn't automatically translate
to detention.
The lawyers likely argued that the detention violated Jogendra Kumar's
fundamental right to personal liberty enshrined in the Indian Constitution
Arguments by the State of Uttar Pradesh (Respondent):
The State might have argued that detaining Jogendra Kumar was necessary for
further investigation related to the unspecified "case" he was called in for.
A possible argument could have been that Jogendra Kumar was not cooperating
with the investigation and his detention was necessary to obtain information.
Judgements Delivered by the Court:

Judges Presiding over the Bench are:
1. M.N. Venkatachaliah (Chief Justice)
2. Justice S. Mohan
3. Justice A.S. Anand
The Supreme Court ruled that Jogendra Kumar's detention by the police was
illegal. The Court determined there wasn't sufficient justification for detaining
him after he responded to the summons.
The Court emphasized that arrest can't be a routine response to mere allegations.
There must be a reasonable suspicion of involvement in an offense to justify
arrest.
The judgement discouraged using arrest as a tool for investigation. In most

cases, the police should issue a summons directing the person to appear at the
station instead of resorting to arrest.
The Court issued specific directives to ensure the lawful exercise of arrest
powers:
Informing a friend or relative about the arrest and detention location
Police informing the arrested person of their right to inform someone
Recording details of the informed person in the station diary
Informing a Friend or Relative: An arrested person has the right to inform a

friend, relative, or someone who cares about their well-being, as soon as
possible, about their arrest and detention location.
This ensures the arrested person isn't held incommunicado and allows someone
to look after their interests, potentially including arranging legal aid.
Police Officer's Duty to Inform: The arresting officer must inform the arrested
individual of their right to inform a friend or relative upon arrival at the police
station.
This empowers the arrested person and prevents them from being unaware of
their rights.
Record Keeping: The police must record in the station diary the details of the
person informed about the arrest.
This creates an official record and discourages denying the right to inform
someone.
Ratio Decidendi the Case:
The ratio decidendi of this case is that unlawful detention is a violation of an
individual's fundamental rights, and the police must adhere to the provisions of
the Cr.P.C. and the Constitution while making arrests and detentions. The Court
emphasized the need to protect the rights of individuals and ensure that the
power of arrest is not misused. This judgment has set a precedent for protecting
the rights of individuals against arbitrary arrest and detention.

Subhra CRPC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Subhra CRPC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Subhra CRPC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Analysis of Jogender Kumar v.

State off Uttar

Registration number: 2341803010

SNIL LLB(H) 1st Year

Criminal Procedural Code

Submitted to: Ms. Krishna Panda

Introduction to the Case:

• The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, Respondent 4 called the

• The petitioner on 7-1-1994 at about 10 o'clock appeared personally along with

• However, instead of just a discussion, Jogendra Kumar was detained by the

On 7-1-1994 at about 12.55 p.m., the brother of the petitioner being

Concerned about the extended detention, Jogendra Kumar's brother sent a

Issues of the Case:

Arguments by the State of Uttar Pradesh (Respondent):

Judgements Delivered by the Court:

1. M.N. Venkatachaliah (Chief Justice)

3. Justice A.S. Anand

The judgement discouraged using arrest as a tool for investigation. In most

Informing a friend or relative about the arrest and detention location

Police informing the arrested person of their right to inform someone

Recording details of the informed person in the station diary

Informing a Friend or Relative: An arrested person has the right to inform a

You might also like