Introduction
The police decide whether a complaint becomes a case, who is arrested, how long they stay in custody and how an investigation is run. Each of these powers is bounded by law, and the courts have repeatedly enforced the limits: on refusing to register an FIR, on arresting without telling the person why, on parading suspects, on misusing preventive detention and on investigating cases in which the police themselves are accused.
This guide explains those limits and the remedies courts have given when they were crossed. It draws on Supreme Court and Rajasthan High Court judgments published on NyayVidhan, each cited with the Court's own paragraph numbers.
Registering the FIR
Where information to the police discloses a cognizable offence, registration of an FIR is mandatory; its credibility is tested during investigation, not before. A preliminary inquiry is allowed only to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed, in categories such as matrimonial, commercial, medical-negligence and corruption cases, and must not exceed seven days (Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1, paras 110-111).
- Public servants. Prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC bars taking cognizance, not registering an FIR or investigating (Mahendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 2026:RJ-JD:24596, paras 6-8). Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act restricts investigation, not registration, and allegations of demanding a bribe need no prior approval at all (Sourabh Garg v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6337/2021, paras 5-6, 9).
- Court-directed FIRs. A High Court that directs an FIR under Section 173(4) BNSS, reversing a trial court's refusal, must give cogent reasons of its own (Kamal Sabharwal v. State of Assam, Criminal Appeal No. 4859 of 2026, paras 4-5). Where a complaint of a serious assault had produced no FIR, the Supreme Court directed a Special Investigation Team to investigate and report to the Magistrate (Kunal Yadav v. Manan Kumar Mishra, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 18857 of 2026, paras 3-5).
Grounds of Arrest
Under Article 22(1), every arrested person, whatever the offence or statute, must be given the grounds of arrest in writing, in a language they understand. If written grounds cannot be given at the time of arrest, oral grounds suffice then, but written grounds must follow at least two hours before production for remand; otherwise the arrest and remand are illegal (Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 1288, paras 46, 52, 55-56).
- A template arrest memo saying that the grounds were "explained" shows only oral communication, and non-compliance entitles the accused to release on bail, including in an NDPS prosecution (Dr. Rajinder Rajan v. Union of India, Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 3326 and 3327 of 2026, paras 20, 22-23).
- An arrest memo saying only that the accused is "involved in the case" does not meet Article 22(1) (Debansu Sarkar v. State of Odisha, Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 16306 of 2026, para 10).
- The prosecutor and the remand Magistrate share the duty to verify that written grounds were furnished, and the gravity of the allegations makes strict compliance more important, not less (Jhabra Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2026:RJ-JP:20725, paras 17-18, 22, 28).
- Earlier, the Supreme Court had held that failure to give written grounds did not by itself entitle an accused to bail where the grounds were known and no prejudice was shown (State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, 2025 INSC 979, para 20); the Rajasthan High Court has held that this prejudice test cannot dilute the rule in Mihir Rajesh Shah (Jhabra Ram, paras 19-21).
How Arrests Are Made
- A warrantless search, seizure and arrest made before the FIR is registered, without recorded grounds or a Section 41A notice, breaches Sections 41, 41A and 50 CrPC and Articles 21 and 22 (Achleshwer Meena v. State of Rajasthan, 2026:RJ-JP:9866, paras 26-28).
- Women cannot be arrested between sunset and sunrise except in exceptional cases, on a woman officer's written reasons and a Magistrate's prior permission, and under Section 179 BNSS they cannot be compelled to attend a police station for questioning (Lakshita v. State of Rajasthan, 2026:RJ-JD:18896, para 15).
- A person cannot be arrested merely because the agency later decides she ought to be arrayed as an accused; disclosures passing between accused are leads, not substantive evidence (Alka v. State of Rajasthan, 2026:RJ-JP:39244, paras 5.2-5.3).
Custody and Dignity
Torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in custody falls within the inhibition of Article 21. The Supreme Court laid down requirements for every arrest and detention, including identification tags for arresting officers, an attested arrest memo, informing a relative, medical examination every 48 hours and access to a lawyer during interrogation, and held the State liable in public law to compensate an established infringement (D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416, paras 23, 37, 57).
The power to investigate does not include the power to punish. Police have no power to parade arrested persons or post their photographs online; such social-media condemnation is punishment without law, and the rights to dignity and reputation survive arrest (Islam Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 2026:RJ-JD:17927, paras 12, 15-18).
Preventive Action and Surveillance
- Preventive action under Sections 107 and 151 CrPC needs cogent material showing a real and imminent threat; a proforma order passed without independent application of mind violates Article 21 (Pawan Gaur v. State of Rajasthan, 2025:RJ-JD:15397, paras 9-11, 13-14).
- Preventive action under the BNSS cannot be used to prolong custody or settle personal scores, and a bail condition without statutory basis that keeps a person in custody denies bail; officers who detained without lawful justification face an inquiry (Rahman Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 2025:RJ-JD:19057, paras 5-6, 11).
- A history sheet may be opened only on a reasoned decision showing habitual criminality; registered cases alone do not suffice, and an unreasoned order violates Articles 14 and 21 (Kaptan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2025:RJ-JP:49285, paras 13-15).
Fair Investigation and Accountability
- Transfer of investigation. Fair investigation is part of Article 21. Where the allegations of illegal detention and fabricated records are against the very police investigating the case, the investigation may be transferred to the CBI, even after a charge-sheet; missing police-station CCTV footage invites an adverse inference (Lakshita, paras 12, 19, 21, 30-31).
- Separating investigation from law and order. Festival, IPL and VIP-visit duties did not justify an investigation pending since 2014; the Rajasthan High Court directed a policy creating separate investigation and law-and-order wings, as Prakash Singh contemplated (Jitendra Meena v. State of Rajasthan, 2026:RJ-JP:10953, paras 21-23, 31-32).
- Suspect records. Where the same constable was shown present at two searches at the same time, the Court ordered the Director General of Police to inquire (Kamal Ramchandani v. State of Rajasthan, 2026:RJ-JP:25790, paras 10, 17-18).
- Systems. The Supreme Court has directed that every police station be digitally connected and every FIR uploaded to CCTNS, with sensitive data redacted (G. Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 11263 of 2025, paras 3-4), and has examined whether a State's rule on appointing its police chief conforms to Prakash Singh (Prakash Singh v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 310 of 1996, paras 1-3).
Accountability runs both ways. Officers' official acts under the NDPS Act are presumed to be in good faith under Section 69, and adverse findings against them need notice and a hearing (Bharti Arora v. State of Haryana, 2024 INSC 976, paras 27-35).
Key Points
- An FIR must be registered when a cognizable offence is disclosed; sanction and prior-approval rules restrict cognizance or investigation, not registration (Lalita Kumari, para 111; Mahendra Kumar, paras 6-7; Sourabh Garg, paras 5-6).
- Written grounds of arrest are mandatory for every offence, at the latest two hours before remand (Mihir Rajesh Shah, paras 52, 56).
- Custodial torture, parading suspects and police-run media trials violate Article 21 (D.K. Basu, para 23; Islam Khan, paras 17-18).
- Preventive action and history sheets need cogent, reasoned grounds (Pawan Gaur, paras 9, 13; Kaptan Singh, paras 13-15).
- Courts may transfer investigations, order inquiries and require structural reform, while officers keep the presumption of good faith and a right to be heard (Lakshita, paras 30-31; Jitendra Meena, paras 31-32; Bharti Arora, paras 27-35).
More rulings are collected on the Police Accountability and Grounds of Arrest pages. See also our guide to writ petitions under Article 226.
