Arrest and remand under criminal procedure upheld where investigation material, witness statements, and custodial need justified the action.

The Court examined whether arrest and remand in a CBI matter were unlawful for alleged non-compliance with Sections 41 and 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and whether malice in law vitiated the arrest. It noted that the petitioner had been examined under Section 160, later interrogated in jail after court permission, and then sought to be arrested on the basis of investigation material, witness and approver statements, and evasive replies. As the recorded reasons showed a need for custodial interrogation and confrontation with evidence, the Court found the arrest was not arbitrary and disclosed no illegality or lack of justification. The arrest and remand were therefore held lawful.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner's arrest and subsequent remand in the CBI case were illegal for non-compliance with the requirements of Sections 41 and 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the arrest was vitiated by malice in law.

Analysis: The challenge was examined in the context of the statutory scheme governing arrest and remand, including the distinction between arrest without warrant under Section 41(1) and arrest pursuant to court permission under Section 41(2), together with the notice regime under Section 41A. The Court noted that the petitioner had initially been examined under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and later interrogated in jail only after the investigating agency obtained court permission, followed by a further application seeking arrest on the basis of material collected during investigation. The reasons recorded before the Special Judge referred to the material gathered in the investigation, the statements of witnesses and approvers, the petitioner's evasive and non-cooperative replies, and the need for custodial interrogation to confront him with evidence and unravel the alleged conspiracy. On that footing, the Court held that the arrest was not a bare or arbitrary exercise of power and that the procedure adopted did not show illegality or want of justification.

Conclusion: The arrest and remand were held to be lawful and not vitiated by non-compliance with Sections 41 and 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or by malice in law.

---