https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289834 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. en-us Wed, 05 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Aug 2020 16:05:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289834 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 05 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289834