Inter-State arrest safeguards require prior coordination and communication of arrest grounds; non-compliance may render the arrest prima facie unlawful.

An inter-State arrest must comply with the prescribed coordination and arrest safeguards, including prior intimation to the local police, proper departure and arrival entries, communication of grounds of arrest, and production before the Magistrate. On the material before the Delhi HC, the petitioner's pickup from Delhi by Uttar Pradesh police without prior intimation and without apparent compliance with the arrest protocol was treated as prima facie unlawful. Because the petitioner had already been released, the Court also ordered preservation of CCTV footage, called for a status report, and required senior police presence to examine the manner of arrest and preserve evidence for further consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the arrest and inter-State pickup of the petitioner from Delhi by Uttar Pradesh without prior intimation to the Delhi Police and without compliance with the prescribed arrest protocol was prima facie illegal. (ii) Whether, in the circumstances, further protective directions for preservation of CCTV footage, filing of status report, and monitoring of the manner of arrest were warranted.

Issue (i): Whether the arrest and inter-State pickup of the petitioner from Delhi by Uttar Pradesh police without prior intimation to the Delhi Police and without compliance with the prescribed arrest protocol was prima facie illegal.

Analysis: The petition was for habeas corpus and the central controversy was the manner in which the petitioner was taken from Delhi. The Court relied on the earlier inter-State arrest protocol, under which prior coordination with the local police, proper departure and arrival entries, compliance with arrest formalities, communication of grounds of arrest, and production before the Magistrate are required. On the material placed, no prior information had been given to the Delhi Police before the arrest, the grounds of arrest had not been communicated at the time of arrest, and the prescribed inter-State procedure did not appear to have been followed. The Court therefore treated the arrest as prima facie contrary to law and requiring closer scrutiny.

Conclusion: The arrest was held to be prima facie illegal for non-compliance with the prescribed inter-State arrest protocol and associated safeguards, in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether, in the circumstances, further protective directions for preservation of CCTV footage, filing of status report, and monitoring of the manner of arrest were warranted.

Analysis: Since the petitioner had already been released, the immediate habeas relief had become unnecessary in practical terms, but the Court found it necessary to inquire into the manner of pickup, the use of private vehicles, the absence of police uniform, and the alleged physical assault. For that purpose, the Court directed preservation of CCTV footage, called for a status report from the Commissioner of Police, Greater Noida, and required a senior police officer to remain present. These directions were intended to preserve evidence and facilitate examination of whether the arresting process complied with law and safeguards.

Conclusion: The Court ordered further inquiry and preservation measures, in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The order granted interim relief to the petitioner by treating the arrest as prima facie unlawful and by issuing further directions to examine the arrest process and preserve relevant evidence, while keeping the matter alive for subsequent consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: An inter-State arrest must comply with the prescribed coordination, arrest, and communication safeguards, and failure to follow those mandatory protections can render the arrest prima facie unlawful.

---