Remand and arrest safeguards: revision lies against refusal to remand, and Section 41-A notice is not always mandatory.

An order refusing remand affects the accused's immediate liberty and is treated as an intermediate order, so revision is maintainable. The Arnesh Kumar guidelines do not create a blanket bar on arrest or remand in offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years; they require compliance with the statutory safeguards governing arrest. Notice under Section 41-A is mandatory only where arrest is not justified under Section 41(1); if the police have reason to believe an offence was committed and arrest is necessary for investigation or to prevent interference with evidence or witnesses, custody may proceed without prior notice. On the facts, refusal to remand solely for non-issue of notice was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could exercise revisional jurisdiction against an order rejecting remand. (ii) Whether the decision in Arnesh Kumar operated as a bar to arrest and remand in the facts of the case. (iii) Whether notice under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was mandatory before arrest in every cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment up to seven years.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could exercise revisional jurisdiction against an order rejecting remand.

Analysis: An order authorising detention or refusing remand directly affects the liberty of the accused and the power of the police to proceed with custody. Such an order does not remain a purely interim or temporary step because it decides the immediate custody question finally for that stage. An order of this nature is therefore treated as an intermediate order, against which revision is maintainable.

Conclusion: In favour of the appellant. The revision was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the decision in Arnesh Kumar operated as a bar to arrest and remand in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The guidelines in Arnesh Kumar were intended to prevent unnecessary arrest and mechanical remand, but they did not lay down that arrest is impermissible in every case involving offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less. The judgment requires compliance with the statutory conditions governing arrest and remand, not their abolition. It therefore cannot be treated as a blanket prohibition against custody where the statutory requirements are otherwise satisfied.

Conclusion: In favour of the appellant. Arnesh Kumar did not bar the arrest or remand on the facts found.

Issue (iii): Whether notice under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was mandatory before arrest in every cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment up to seven years.

Analysis: Section 41-A applies where arrest is not required under Section 41(1). Where the police have reason to believe that the accused committed a cognizable offence and are satisfied that arrest is necessary for proper investigation or to prevent interference with evidence or witnesses, arrest may be made under Section 41(1)(b) without first issuing notice under Section 41-A. The remand record showed grounds falling within those statutory conditions, so the refusal to remand on the sole ground of non-issue of notice was erroneous.

Conclusion: In favour of the appellant. Notice under Section 41-A was not mandatory on the facts of the case.

Final Conclusion: The refusal to remand was held unsustainable, the revisional challenge succeeded, and the accused were directed to be produced for custody in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An order refusing remand is revisable if it finally determines the custody question at that stage, and notice under Section 41-A is required only when arrest is not justified under Section 41(1); where the statutory grounds for arrest exist, arrest and remand may lawfully proceed without such notice.

---