State of Haryana vs Dinesh Kumar AIR 2008 SC 1083 - Case Analysis

Introduction of State of Haryana vs Dinesh Kumar AIR 2008 SC 1083

The landmark case of State of Haryana vs Dinesh Kumar (AIR 2008 SC 1083) examined the distinction between ‘arrest’ and ‘custody’ in criminal law. The Supreme Court in its decision on 8th January 2008 clarified important concepts of arrest, custody and bail under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The decision addressed important issues like -

• whether voluntary surrender to the Court amounts to arrest
• the essential conditions for bail under Section 439
• the implications of failing to disclose legal history in job applications. 

The case has significant implications for how these concepts are applied in criminal cases especially regarding employment and salary entitlements.

Download State of Haryana vs Dinesh Kumar AIR 2008 SC 1083 PDF

Historical Context and Facts of State of Haryana vs Dinesh Kumar AIR 2008 SC 1083

The case at hand centres around the difference between ‘arrest’ and ‘custody’. The following are the brief facts of the case-

Application of the Candidates

In this case Dinesh Kumar, Lalit Kumar and Bhupinder respectively applied for the position of Constable Drivers with the Haryana Police. The application form consisted of questions regarding whether the candidates had ever been arrested or convicted of a crime.

Character Verification

It was discovered that the candidates had failed to disclose prior legal issues on their application form during the verification process of their character and antecedents. Accordingly, their applications for the position of Constable drivers were rejected.

Petition by Dinesh Kumar

Dinesh Kumar contended that he had not been arrested or taken into custody. He claimed that he had voluntarily appeared before the Magistrate with his lawyer and applied for bail. Accordingly, he was released immediately on bail. He contended that since he was never arrested or detained he truthfully answered ‘No’ to the question of whether he had ever been arrested.

The Petition of Lalit Kumar and Bhupinder

Lalit Kumar and Bhupinder also contended that they had appeared before the Magistrate and were granted bail and were never detained. They maintained that since their cases were discharged and they had not been arrested or convicted. Therefore, they had not concealed any information in their application.

Contention of the State

The State contended that the candidates had intentionally failed to provide accurate information on their application forms. The State contended that by voluntarily appearing before the Magistrate and seeking bail the candidates had submitted themselves to judicial custody even if they were not formally arrested or detained.

Disqualification of the Applicants

The State argued that because the candidates failed to disclose crucial information about their legal history they should be disqualified from being appointed to the position.

Decision of the First Bench of the High Court (Dinesh Kumar Petition)

The First Bench observed that Dinesh Kumar had truthfully answered the question as he was acquitted in the criminal case and was never arrested or convicted. His voluntary appearance before the Magistrate did not constitute arrest.

Decision of the Second Bench of the High Court (Lalit Kumar and Bhupinder Petition)

A different bench of the same High Court held that the failure of the candidate to disclose their legal history disqualified them from appointment.

Appeal in the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court was called upon to decide the issue since two different benches of the same High Court had arrived at conflicting conclusions.

Issue addressed in State of Haryana vs Dinesh Kumar AIR 2008 SC 1083

The main questions which was addressed in this case were-

• Is it possible that they were arrested for the investigation the moment they came before the Judge and were freed without being placed in formal custody?
• Whether mere detention of the person by an authority with the power to arrest that person constitutes an arrest?
• Whether the words arrest and custody are interchangeable?

Legal Provisions involved in State of Haryana vs Dinesh Kumar AIR 2008 SC 1083

In the Dinesh Kumar case Section 46 and Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) played a significant role. The following is the legal analysis of this provision -

Section 46 of the Criminal Procedure Code

Section 46 of the CrPC states that an arrest requires the police officer to -

• physically touch or 
• confine the person unless they voluntarily submit to custody by word or action
• If the person resists or tries to escape the officer may use necessary force

It is to be noted that no excessive force should be used especially if the person is not accused of an offence punishable by death or life imprisonment.

Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code

Section 439 of the CrPC allows the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail to-

• a person in custody
• impose necessary conditions or 
• modify conditions set by a Magistrate

Before granting bail to someone accused of an offence triable by the Court of Session or punishable with life imprisonment, notice must be given to the Public Prosecutor.

In cases involving sections 376, 376AB, 376DA, or 376DB of the IPC, the Public Prosecutor must be notified within 15 days. It also states that the informant or their representative must be present during the bail hearing in such cases. The Court can also revoke bail and commit the person to custody.

Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India

According to Article 22 of Indian Constitution -

(1) individuals arrested must be informed of the grounds for their arrest as soon as possible and have the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice. The arresting authority must communicate the reasons for arrest in order to enable the individual to prepare a defence and seek bail.

Judgment and Impact of State of Haryana vs Dinesh Kumar AIR 2008 SC 1083

The Supreme Court in the Dinesh Kumar case analysed the concepts of ‘arrest’ and ‘custody’ in criminal cases. The Court pointed out that neither the Indian Penal Code (IPC) nor the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) defines the terms ‘arrest’ and ‘custody’. Section 46(1) and (2) of the CrPC provide the procedure to arrest the person. 

The Court stressed that for an arrest to be made the following must exists-

• there must be an intent to arrest and with the authority to do so 
• the apprehension or restraint of the liberty of the individual
• the individual must be aware of the arrest

The Court in the context of ‘custody’ clarified that a person is considered to be in custody not only when arrested by the police or presented before a Magistrate but also when they voluntarily surrender to the Court and comply with its directions and placing them under judicial custody. 

The Court also stated that a person must be in custody before they can seek bail under Section 439 of the CrPC. Therefore, for a bail application under Section 439 the following conditions must exists- 

• the person must be in custody
• before applying for bail their freedom of movement was restricted

Thus, the candidates were given the benefit of the doubt and were considered as appointed.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs Dinesh Kumar (2008) overturned the opinion of the High Court. The Court stated that a layperson cannot distinguish between ‘arrest’ and ‘custody’. The Court pointed out that the situation would have been different if bail had not been granted. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the candidates will be considered appointed and their salary will only be applicable from the date of the judgement.