Meaning of arrest and custody under criminal procedure clarified for recruitment disclosure and bail-related self-reporting

'Arrest' under Section 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure means actual touching or confinement of the body, or submission to custody by word or action, while 'custody' in the bail context under Section 439 includes physical control or appearance before the court with submission to its jurisdiction. A person who appears before the Magistrate and seeks bail may therefore be treated as in judicial custody even without prior formal police arrest. On disclosure, the text notes that the candidates' understanding of the recruitment form was given the benefit of doubt, and denial of appointment was not sustained for the successful appellants.

---

---

Issues: Whether appearance before the Magistrate and grant of bail without formal police detention amounted to "arrest" or "custody" for the purpose of the recruitment form query, and whether non-disclosure of the criminal case justified denial of appointment.

Analysis: The expression "arrest" was held to carry the meaning indicated by Section 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, namely actual touching or confining of the body or submission to custody by word or action. "Custody" in the context of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was treated as physical control, or at least physical presence in court coupled with submission to the court's jurisdiction. A person who appears before the Magistrate and applies for bail submits to judicial custody even if not first taken into formal police custody. On the facts, however, the Court distinguished between the correct legal meaning of arrest and the practical understanding of the candidates when answering the recruitment form.

Conclusion: The legal position was answered against the view that there could be no arrest or custody merely because no formal police arrest preceded the bail application. At the same time, the benefit of doubt on disclosure was extended in the connected matter, so the denial of appointment was not sustained for the successful appellants.

---