Prayagraj, Oct 7 The Allahabad High Court has applied the American legal doctrine of "fruit of the poisonous tree" to hold that a subsequent formal arrest and remand cannot legitimise an earlier illegal detention, directing the release of a Prayagraj resident and awarding him Rs 30,000 compensation.
A division bench of justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev made the observation while allowing a habeas corpus petition concerning the alleged illegal detention of Ravi Chaurasiya by Soraon police in Prayagraj.
'Fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine is normally applied when someone presents an argument claiming they were unlawfully arrested or detained.
The court held that where the initial detention of a person is unlawful, a subsequent arrest, even if otherwise supported by valid grounds, and the remand proceedings flowing from it would also stand vitiated.
Chaurasiya was formally arrested on September 16 after being allegedly kept in police custody for around 31 hours without being formally arrested or produced before a magistrate, according to the court's order dated September 28.
According to the petition, Chaurasiya was taken into police custody from Ayodhya on September 14 and brought to Soraon police station, but no arrest was shown at that stage.
His mother visited the police station on September 15 to ascertain his well-being and subsequently approached the high court with a habeas corpus petition alleging illegal detention.
The police formally arrested Chaurasiya at 10:45 am on September 16, recorded the arrest in the general diary, conducted his medical examination and produced him before a magistrate, who remanded him to judicial custody.
The high court had called for CCTV footage from the police station. It noted that the counter affidavit filed by the station house officer and investigating officer admitted that Chaurasiya was in police custody.
The SHO attributed the failure to record his presence in the general diary to an inadvertent mistake, but the court rejected the explanation, observing that an experienced police officer could not have failed to make an entry recording that the petitioner had been brought to the police station and lodged in the lock-up.
The court noted that the formal arrest was made only after the police became aware of the habeas corpus petition filed on September 15. It concluded that Chaurasiya had remained in police custody for more than 24 hours without being produced before a judicial magistrate for remand.
Examining the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, which originated in American criminal jurisprudence, the court held that it applies to detention and arrest as well.
The court, in its September 28 judgement, described the initial unlawful detention as the "poisonous tree" and subsequent actions flowing from it as its "fruit".
"In a situation where the subsequent arrest follows an unlawful detention of the corpus, the arrest is rendered unlawful as are the proceedings of remand by the judicial magistrate as the genesis leading to the arrest was the unlawful detention of the accused violating his right under Art 22," the court observed.
The bench also relied on the Supreme Court's recent judgment in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab, noting that an arrest found unconstitutional for violating Article 22(1) would render subsequent remand orders vitiated.
The court further found non-compliance with Section 38 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which concerns an accused's right to meet an advocate of his choice during investigation.
It clarified that the police duty under Section 38 also arises when a suspect is taken to a police station for interrogation, even before the person is formally arrested or made an accused.
The court directed the Prayagraj commissioner to conduct an inquiry into the matter, fix responsibility for the illegal detention and take appropriate action against those responsible.
It also recorded its displeasure with the conduct of the Soraon SHO and directed that, if the inquiry finds negligence on his part, the court's displeasure be entered in his service record.
The court, however, clarified that the police may re-arrest Chaurasiya in accordance with law and the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court.
It directed that he be released forthwith if he was not wanted in any other case.
