THE PRIEST

Supreme court in Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi v. State of Gujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 406: AIR 1991 SC 2176 laid down following guidelines to be followed before arresting judicial officers : (A) If a judicial officer is to be arrested for some offence, it should be done under intimation to the District Judge or the High Court as the case may be. (B) If facts and circumstances necessitate the immediate arrest of a judicial officer of the subordinate judiciary, a technical or formal arrest may be effected. (C) The facts of such arrest should be immediately communicated to the District and Sessions Judge of the concerned District and the Chief Justice of the High Court. (D) The Judicial Officer so arrested shall not be taken to a police station, without the prior order or directions of the District & Sessions Judge of the concerned District, if available. (E) Immediate facilities shall be provided to the Judicial Officer to

Supreme Court in Smt Selvi & Ors vs State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 1267 of 2004) on 5th May 2010 held that:  No individual should be forcibly subjected to any of the techniques in question, whether in the context of investigation in criminal cases or otherwise. Doing so would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into personal liberty. However, the court allowed voluntary administration of the impugned techniques in the context of criminal justice, provided that certain safeguards are in place. Even when the subject has given consent to undergo any of these tests, the test results by themselves cannot be admitted as evidence because the subject does not exercise conscious control over the responses during the administration of the test. However, any information or material that is subsequently discovered with the help of voluntary administered test results can be admitted, in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The National Human Rights Commission had

While deciding Criminal Appeal number 1081,1082 and 1083 of 2015 Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3611,3612,3613 of 2015 respectively the Supreme Court on 21st August in it's judgement answered   "A common question of law involved in these three appeals as to whether no remand in police custody can be given to the investigating agency in respect of the absconding accused who is arrested only after filing of the charge sheet." As per the judgement  "  If sufficient evidence has been obtained to raise a suspicion that the accused may have committed an offence, and it appears likely that further evidence may be obtained by a remand, this is a reasonable cause for a remand.” The principle of law laid down by the three judge bench of the Supreme Court in State v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar (supra) that police remand can be sought under Section 167(2) CrPC in respect of an accused arrested at the stage of further investigation, if the interrogation