High Court stay of arrest during investigation remains exceptional; Joginder Kumar does not create a general restraint power.

High Court interference with arrest during investigation was held to be exceptional, limited to settled grounds such as absence of a cognizable offence, statutory bar, or other recognised bases for intervention; the Court rejected any general power to stay arrest merely by invoking Joginder Kumar. It held that Joginder Kumar concerned police safeguards at the time of arrest in a habeas corpus context, not an enlarged Article 226 power to restrain arrest or replace anticipatory bail. The Full Bench view in Satyapal was affirmed, and the reference was answered in favour of the State. The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous after charge-sheet and cognizance.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether arrest during investigation can be stayed by the High Court only in rarest of rare cases or according to the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar. (ii) Whether the Full Bench in Satyapal was correct in holding that Joginder Kumar was decided on its own peculiar facts and does not lay down general legal principles governing arrest and stay of arrest by the High Court.

Issue (i): Whether arrest during investigation can be stayed by the High Court only in rarest of rare cases or according to the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar.

Analysis: Arrest was treated as part of investigation, and the power of investigation was held to lie primarily and ordinarily within the exclusive domain of the police. Judicial interference at the investigation stage was described as exceptional and confined to cases where the FIR did not disclose a cognizable offence, where statutory bars applied, or where the case otherwise fell within the settled parameters for quashing or interference. The decision in Joginder Kumar was distinguished as dealing with police powers of arrest and safeguards at the time of arrest, not with a general power in the High Court to stay arrest during investigation. The Court further held that interim relief could not be used to create a back door substitute for anticipatory bail where that remedy was unavailable.

Conclusion: The correct law was held to be that stated in Satyapal, and stay of arrest during investigation is not to be granted merely by applying Joginder Kumar.

Issue (ii): Whether the Full Bench in Satyapal was correct in holding that Joginder Kumar was decided on its own peculiar facts and does not lay down general legal principles governing arrest and stay of arrest by the High Court.

Analysis: The Court held that Joginder Kumar arose from a habeas corpus context and was directed to police conduct, with its operative directions concerned with informing relatives, diary entries, and magistrate oversight. Those observations were not intended to enlarge the High Court's powers under Article 226 to quash FIRs or stay arrest in ordinary cognizable cases. The Court held that the ratio of Joginder Kumar had no application to the question of quashing criminal proceedings or staying arrest during investigation, and that the observations in Satyapal did not whittle down the police safeguards recognised in Joginder Kumar.

Conclusion: The Full Bench in Satyapal was right in confining Joginder Kumar to its own facts and in holding that it did not lay down a general rule enlarging the High Court's power to stay arrest.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the State's position, the earlier Full Bench view was affirmed, and the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous after charge-sheet and cognizance.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court cannot stay arrest during investigation except within the narrow, settled limits governing interference with criminal investigation, and a police-arrest safeguard ruling cannot be transposed into a general power to restrain arrest under Article 226.

---