Whether House Arrest included under Section 167 Cr.P.C

 

House arrest.

              

    In India, the definition of House Arrest is not available in the criminal law of jurisprudence but has its root in laws providing for  preventive detention under the National Security Act, 1980. The  inclusion of provision for house arresting accused persons  under Criminal law is a issue mainly when overcrowding in jail is at its peak and saving cost in maintaining it is questionable. In the criminal law jurisprudence there are two types of custody – police custody and judicial custody. Police custody is a custody where accused person  is sent to lock-up for interrogation and judicial custody is a custody when an arrested person is sent to jail by the court. In house arrest, the accused are confined to their homes, communication is restricted and there is constant surveillance.

The Supreme Court gave a remarkable judgement, in Gautam Navalakha case, on May 12, 2021,  Justices  Uday Umesh Lalit and K.M. Joesph held that house arrest of accused person  can be said to be in judicial custody under Section 167(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, in order to save cost for maintaining prisons and avoiding overcrowding. Gautam Navalakha and four others were arrested by Maharastra Police in Bhima Koregaon Case under various sections of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,1967 and Indian Penal Code. The Court observed that under Section 167 in appropriate cases it will be open to courts to order house arrest. For the employment of house arrest, without being exhaustive, must indicate criteria like age, health condition and the antecedents of the accused, the nature of the crime, the need for other forms of custody and the ability to enforce the terms of house arrest, the Judges Said.

Following the above law of precedence, the High Court of Calcutta ordered the house arrest of the two Bengal cabinet ministers Firhad Hakim and Subrata Mukherjee and two former ministers Madan Mitra and Sovan Chatterjee in connection with the Narada sting case following the guidance given by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gautam Navlakha vs. National Investigation Agency (2021). The Court said, during their house arrest, while being in home comfort, they shall be entitled to all medical facilities and shall be bound by all applicable restriction and it shall be duty of the jail authorities in the Sate to enforce the conditions. However, as for the interim bail, the Hon’ble High Court ordered that matter be decided by larger Bench. As for the prayer by the accused for allowing to discharge their official duties to manage Covid-19, the Court permitted to deal with the files sent to them online and hold meeting through video conferencing but shall not have direct access to the accused.

Disclaimer:

The above words are the words of The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Judgement and not from the source of other news article.