Arrest requires necessity and reasonable grounds, with mandatory safeguards for intimation and Magistrate verification.

Arrest may not be made merely because it is legally permissible; it must be supported by reasonable grounds, investigation-based satisfaction as to the complaint and the person's complicity, and actual necessity. Routine arrest on a bare allegation is discouraged, and notice to attend the police station should be preferred where sufficient, except in heinous offences. The arrested person's constitutional safeguards require prompt intimation to a friend or relative at the arrestee's request, disclosure of that right by the police, diary entry of the intimation, and Magistrate verification of compliance before detention is continued.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an arrest can be made merely because it is lawful to do so or only when justified by necessity and reasonable grounds; (ii) what safeguards must attend arrest and detention, including intimation to a relative or friend and production before the Magistrate.

Issue (i): Whether an arrest can be made merely because it is lawful to do so or only when justified by necessity and reasonable grounds.

Analysis: The law of arrest was held to require a balance between individual liberty and the needs of law enforcement. The existence of power to arrest was distinguished from the justification for its exercise. Arrest was described as a serious invasion of personal liberty and reputation, and it was held that no arrest should be made in a routine manner or on a mere allegation. A police officer must have reasonable satisfaction, based on some investigation, as to the genuineness of the complaint, the complicity of the person, and the necessity of arrest. Except in heinous offences, arrest should be avoided where notice to attend the station would suffice.

Conclusion: Arrest cannot be made merely because it is legally permissible; it must be justified by reasonable grounds and necessity. This conclusion is in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): What safeguards must attend arrest and detention, including intimation to a relative or friend and production before the Magistrate.

Analysis: The rights of an arrested person were held to flow from Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India and to require strict observance. The Court laid down that an arrested person, if he so requests, must be allowed to have one friend, relative, or other interested person informed of the arrest and place of detention as soon as practicable. The police officer must inform the arrestee of this right on arrival at the police station and make an entry in the diary of the intimation given. The Magistrate before whom the arrestee is produced must satisfy himself that these requirements have been complied with. The Court also indicated that departmental instructions should ensure recording of reasons for arrest in the case diary.

Conclusion: These procedural safeguards are mandatory and must be followed in all arrests. This conclusion is in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petition was disposed of with binding safeguards regulating arrest and detention, reinforcing that personal liberty cannot be curtailed arbitrarily and that police action must satisfy necessity, reasonableness, and prompt intimation requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: The power to arrest is not a power to arrest routinely; it may be exercised only when supported by reasonable justification and necessity, and it must be accompanied by constitutional safeguards protecting the arrested person's liberty and right to intimation.

---