NURE ALAM CHOWDHURY, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition filed under Section 439, Cr. P. C. read with Section 482 ibid for bail of the petitioner in the perspective of his arrest in connection with Rajkot City 'b' Division P. S. Case No. 152 of 1996, dated 14-5-96 under Sections 363, 366 120-B, 109 of I. P. C. and stay order against the order dated 22-8-96 passed by the Ld. S. D. J. M. . Sadar Hooghly over an application by the Court Inspector, Chinsurah, Hooghly for removal of the petitioner-accused to Gujarat following an application submitted to O. C. , Dadpur P. S. , Dt. Hooghly by one Bachhulal M. Sharma alleged to be an A. S. I. of Rajkot City 'b' Division P. S. in connection with that case, and an order of the learned C. J. M. , Hooghly, dated 22-896 transferring the case to the learned S. D. J. M. , Hooghly and an order of the learned S. D. J. M. , dated 22-8-96 directing removal of the petitioner for his production before the Ld. Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case of Rajkot City 'b' Division P. S. , is heard in presence of the learned advocates for the petitioner as well as the State. ( 2 ) IN a nutshell the petitioner's case is that the petitioner is an old man suffering from various diseases natural with the old-age and is earning his livelihood as a Teacher-in-Charge in a High School in that locality. Of his 4 sons, the 4th one Bagbul Islam lives at Rajkot, Gujarat since long for earning his livelihood and comes to the house of the petitioner after long intervals. One Bachhulal M. Sharma, alleged to be an A. S. I. of Rajkot P. S. came to the house of the petitioner at Hooghly in the last week of June, 1996 and told him that Bagbul Islam married a Gujarati woman at Rajkot. The petitioner received a letter from S. I. of Police C. I. D. , West Bengal, Serampore D. D. requiring his presence before that S. I. on 9-8-96 and again three days thereafter. The petitioner received a letter from S. I. of Police C. I. D. , West Bengal, Serampore D. D. requiring his presence before that S. I. on 9-8-96 and again three days thereafter. The petitioner met the Police Officer despite his physical troubles, but the Police Officer continued to harass the petitioner by calling him to P. S. again and again, although he made it clear to the Police Officer that he did not receive any information about his 4th son, Bagbul since long and was not aware of his whereabouts. On 21-8-96 the petitioner was summoned by O. C. , Dadpur P. S. over that enquiry regarding Bagbul and when he went to O. C. Dadpur P. S. on 21-8-96 he was taken to custody all of a sudden and forwarded to the learned C. J. M. , Hooghly on 22-8-96. On his production before the learned C. J. M. , he found that a police officer, allegedly from Rajkot, submitted an application before the learned C. J. M. in Hindi, without any seal or stamp, and without production of warrant of arrest from any Court. The learned C. J. M. , Hooghly transferred the matter to the learned S. D. J. M. , Hooghly (Sadar) and after hearing the bail prayer filed by the petitioner the learned S. D. J. M. , Sadar Hooghly held that as he did not have any jurisdiction over the matter and the matter was forwarded to him by the learned C. J. M. his hands were tied up and as such he was directing for removal of the petitioner to Rajkot for production before the Magistrate having jurisdiction. The petitioner prays for bail in connection with this matter of Rajkot City 'b' Division P. S. Case No. 152 of 1996 and for stay of the order of the learned Magistrate dated 22-8-96 directing removal of the petitioner to Rajkot P. S. ( 3 ) WE have heard Sri Dilip Dutt, learned Senior advocate for the petitioner who enunciates the provisions of law as laid down in Sections 41, 48, 50, 57, 78, 157 and 167 Cr. P. C. and relies on the ruling reported in 1994 SCC (Cri) 1172 : (1994 Cri LJ 1991 ). P. C. and relies on the ruling reported in 1994 SCC (Cri) 1172 : (1994 Cri LJ 1991 ). On behalf of the State learned P. P.-in-Charge produces some applications alleged to be filed by one A. S. I. , Rajkot City 'b' Division P. S. before O. C. , Dadpur P. S. , in Hindi without any translation or transliteration thereof, along with true copy of Dadpur P. S. G. D. Entry No. 1371, dated 21-8-96, No. 1372, dated 21-8-96, No. 1158, dated 31-5-96, No. 1167, dated 31-5-96 and certain messages requiring production of relevant documents before the learned P. P. The State also produces an unsigned application sent to the learned P. P. High Court, Calcutta in connection with that matter, wherefrom it appears that no. P. S. Case over the matter was started at Dadpur P. S. and in spite of conducting raid in the house of the petitioner at Hodla, the I. O. that is A. S. I. Bachhulal M. Sharma of Rajkot P. S. (sic ). On some previous occasions the accused Bagbul Islam could not be traced and the T. O. stated that the petitioner, that is, the father of Bagbul helped the accused person to escape and as such he was liable for prosecution under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 363, 366 of the same Code and as such the petitioner was taken to custody. ( 4 ) THE settled principle of law is that in case of cognizable offences a Police Officer may arrest any person in terms of Section 41, Cr. P. C. and a Police Officer may for the purpose of arresting without warrant any person whom he is authorised to arrest, pursue such person into any place in India. Such arrest of an offender on the allegation of commission of cognizable offence by any Officer of Gujarat is not at all illegal, although made in West Bengal, but provisions of Cr. P. C. must be strictly complied with for effecting such arrest, detention and removal in terms of the Sections as rightly cited by the learned advocate for the petitioner. As provided in Section 50, Cr. P. C. every Police Officer arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him the full particulars of offence for which he is arrested or other grounds of such arrest. As provided in Section 50, Cr. P. C. every Police Officer arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him the full particulars of offence for which he is arrested or other grounds of such arrest. There is no doubt that such arrest can be effected on requisition from the outstation Officer having jurisdiction over such matter and such requisition may be communicated either in writing or even orally to the P. S. of the area concerned but for effecting such arrest the concerned clause of Section 41, Cr. P. C. should be strictly construed and followed. Essential conditions for arrest as provided in that Section are :- (1) Commission of cognizable offence or reasonable complaint concerning it; (2) reasonable suspicion (i. e. founded on some definite facts) but not bare suspicion or surmise; (3) credible information of a person's having been concerned in any cognizable offence, and (4) exercise of personal responsibility and personal judgment in making arrest without reliance on the belief of any other person. The idea of free detention is unknown in law. Under Article 22 of the Constitution an arrested person must be informed as soon as possible of the ground of his arrest and shall be given the right to consult and to be defended by a lawyer of his choice and shall be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of such arrest. The reasonable ground of suspicion depends on the peculiarity of each case, but it must at least be founded on some definite facts tending to throw suspicion on the person arrested and definitely not. on mere vague surmise, information or tall claim of any Police Officer of confession before him over telephone, without any foundation of facts and materials. Reasonable means a bona fide belief that an offence has been committed by the person concerned and mere suspicion is not enough. Reasonability of suspicion is not, surely, a subjective consideration or hypothesis of the Police Officer concerned; the burden lies heavily on the Police Officer to satisfy the Magistrate, before whom the arrest is challenged, that he has reasonable grounds of suspicion which must be established objectively. Reasonability of suspicion is not, surely, a subjective consideration or hypothesis of the Police Officer concerned; the burden lies heavily on the Police Officer to satisfy the Magistrate, before whom the arrest is challenged, that he has reasonable grounds of suspicion which must be established objectively. It has been held in very many rulings of different Courts of this country that it can not be held to be a reasonable suspicion merely because a Police Officer has been informed by another Police Officer that the latter thinks there is information of commission of a cognizable offence (1916) 20 CWN 1233 : (18 Cri LJ 73); 29 CWN 98 : (26 Cri LJ 625) or that any Police Officer harbours doubt not about complicity of a person. Credible and reasonable must have reference not only to the mind of the person receiving the information but also must be based on definite facts other than personal feelings and knowledge of the Police Officer. Reasonable suspicion as it is construed in law does not mean that the police is bound by their own discretion only, as to who should be arrested and who should not be. The police is not the final judge of what is reasonable or credible. The officer concerned must establish the same before the Court concerned with definite facts and circumstances for obtaining an order, and, if the Police Officer fails to put up sufficient materials before the Court concerned, his prayer for remand or removal must be turned down by the Court by exercising careful judicial discretion and with heavy hands. Arrest is not a routine work and an order of the learned Magistrate directing removal of the accused person to any jurisdiction other than that of him without applying his mind and without sufficient materials before him is all the more improper and illegal. ( 5 ) IT has been laid down repeatedly in various rulings that the power as provided under clause (i) Section 41 Cr. P. C. being drastic, has to be exercised with caution and on substantial reasons, ( AIR 1959 MP 147 ) : (1959 Cri LJ 600) as otherwise it will be an engine of oppression. ( 5 ) IT has been laid down repeatedly in various rulings that the power as provided under clause (i) Section 41 Cr. P. C. being drastic, has to be exercised with caution and on substantial reasons, ( AIR 1959 MP 147 ) : (1959 Cri LJ 600) as otherwise it will be an engine of oppression. We find from the order of the learned C. J. M. , Sri S. Dutta, Hooghly, dated 22-8-96 that he held that he did not find it proper to pass any order in this case as the accused was not arrested in execution of any warrant and as such he transferred the case to the learned S. D. J. M. , Hooghly for necessary action. We fail to appreciate the merit of this order from the discussion as recorded above. There cannot be any reason for doubt that a Police Officer was authorised to arrest a person on the allegation of commission of cognizable offence without any warrant. But we fail to understand how the jurisdiction of learned C. J. M. was restricted only to the cases of production of accused in execution of warrants of any Court and was excluded in others even in case of such cases where the learned S. D. J. M. failed to fathom the depth of his order. The learned C. J. M. although being the seniormost Magistrate clearly cold shouldered the responsibility of applying his mind about the knotty problem in this case and resorted to load-shedding and shirking his responsibility. He passed it over to a Magistrate junior to him without discharging his duties properly taking the advantage of his seniority and power to transfer. The decision of the learned S. D. J. M. , Hooghly was all the more unfortunate and indiscreet and weak-kneed, as he clearly failed to apply his judicial discretion in this respect and to consider whether sufficient materials were produced before him or not and also to take adequate action if such sufficient materials were not produced before him. He danced at the tune of police officer, mechanically allowed the prayer for removal of the petitioner without applying his judicial mind and without sufficient materials before him therefor. He danced at the tune of police officer, mechanically allowed the prayer for removal of the petitioner without applying his judicial mind and without sufficient materials before him therefor. The Magistrate ought to have to apply his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and to act in terms of the provision of the Act as laid down in Section 167, Cr. P. C. ( 6 ) THE Magistrate to whom the accused is brought for remand may or may not had jurisdiction to try the case but the officer apprehending a citizen of India must produce him before the Magistrate at the nearest for obtaining appropriate judicial order. Remand to custody during police investigation is not a mechanical act to be granted merely at the desire of police without examining meticulously whether there were sufficient materials for reasonable suspicion by applying judicial mind and on the lofty claims of the police officer of Rajkot as contained in his last petition in Hindi that the present petitioner confessed before the said police officer over telephone. Such allegation of confession, the learned Magistrate must be knowing, has no sanctity in the eye of law. The statute places a heavy duty on the Magistrate and requires exercise of judicial discretion depending on the satisfaction of the Magistrate himself by applying his judicial mind carefully. Consequently absence of case diary and a day-to-day report of the investigation showing existence of prima facie materials against the person concerned, which is the foundation of a case placed for judicial consideration creates a very peculiar situation ( 1975 Crlj 83 Ori ). Transmission of copy of case diary, legible and understandable to the Magistrate, for apprising him to all the materials available on investigation is a must. It enables to decide not only whether further detention is necessary or not but also whether an accusation has sufficient foundation. Failure to send copy of the diary and day-to-day report showing materials against a particular person brought under arrest leads to the reasonable judicial conclusion that no such material has come into existence ( AIR 1957 AP 561 ) : (1957 Cri LJ 1062), and that there is no sufficient foundation of the accusation. Failure to send copy of the diary and day-to-day report showing materials against a particular person brought under arrest leads to the reasonable judicial conclusion that no such material has come into existence ( AIR 1957 AP 561 ) : (1957 Cri LJ 1062), and that there is no sufficient foundation of the accusation. The Magistrate is to decide judicially on the materials in the diary whether or not detention of the accused is necessary ( AIR 1959 All 384 ) : (1959 Cri LJ 685) or at all required and well founded. It is a clear dereliction of duty if Magistrate did not peruse the case diary before authorising any type of custody (1981 Cr LJ 1773 (D), including an order of removal to Gujarat. Section 172, Cr. P. C. lays down what materials are to be contained in the diary. ( 7 ) IN this case we are constrained to hold that the learned Magistrate passing the order of removal of the petitioner to Rajkot committed dereliction of his duty and danced mechanically at the tune of the police, as the documents produced before this court by the State reveal beyond doubt that the State, that is Police of Gujarat State, failed to produce the case diary before the learned C. J. M. , Hooghly and also the learned S. D. J. M. , Hooghly, in compliance of Section 167, Cr. P. C. and Section 172, Cr. P. C. after effecting arrest under Section 41, Cr. P. C. Without applying his mind the learned Magistrate just complied mechanically with the requisition of the police which the High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court decried repeatedly. The learned Magistrate failed to see that there was no material at all in the papers submitted by the A. S. I. of Rajkot City 'b' Division P. S. except an uncorroborated statement that the petitioner promised to him to produce his son and that he confessed repeatedly over telephone that he harboured his son and the girl kidnapped and he failed to appreciate that such claim of confession before police, and, that too, over telephone, has no sanctity in the eye of law. ( 8 ) ARREST and removal of the accused to police custody must never be considered to be a routine work and must not be allowed without careful consideration of all the materials contained in the copy of case diary, of course, legible and understandable to the Magistrate, and establishing prima facie the complicity of the accused person in respect of an offence cognizable and non-bailable. In this case Gujarat police and the learned Magistrate at Hooghly failed to rise up to the occasion and to comply with their legal duties. They all acted quite illegally, negligently as a piece of routine work, and with executive fiat unjustified for all of them. We find that the order of the learned S. D. J. M. , Hooghly, dated 22-8-96, directing removal of the accused person without sufficient materials established to him was quite illegal and must be quashed under Section 482, Cr. P. C. ( 9 ) WE echo the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as contained in the ruling relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner. "the quality of a nation's civilisation can be largely measured by the methods it uses in the enforcement of criminal law. The horizon of human rights is expanding. At the same time, the crime rate is also increasing. The Court has been receiving complaints about violation of human rights because of indiscriminate arrests. A realistic approach should be made in this direction. The law of arrest is one of balancing individual rights liberties and privileges, on the one hand, and individual duties, obligations and responsibilities on the other; of weighing and balancing the rights, liberties and privileges of the single individual and those of individuals collectively; of simply deciding what is wanted and where to put the weight and the emphasis; of deciding which comes first- the criminal or society, the law violator or the law abider". ( 10 ) APROPOS of that judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court we also hold that no person can be kept or removed in police custody because it is desirable or even if considered lawful to the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest before the nearest Magistrate apart from his power to arrest. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest before the nearest Magistrate apart from his power to arrest. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in routine manner or on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person or unfounded suspicion. Under no circumstance such an arrest can be signetted by a Court if made on suspicion or belief of a police officer without sufficient foundation thereof established to the satisfaction of the Magistrate. It would be prudent for a police officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen, and, perhaps in his own interest, that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and. a reasonable belief both as to the person's complicity and as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence and, that too, as and when as it appears only to a police officer. There must be some reasonable justification that such arrest is necessary and justified. Such reasonable decision must be established to the satisfaction of the Magistrate after careful consideration of all the materials that police officer must produce before the Magistrate in compliance with Section 167, Cr. P. C. read with Section 172, Cr. P. C. ( 11 ) THE Police Officers at Dadpur just did their duties mechanically and perfunctorily and noted in their forwarding memo that they just helped the Rajkot P. S. without any idea and without being satisfied themselves about the reasonableness of the complaint and the applications submitted by the A. S. I. , Rajkot Police had no materials as contemplated under Section 167 read with Section 172, Cr. P. C. , and clearly the learned S. D. J. M. , Hooghly had no material to comply with the requisition of the police mechanically which was consequently an abuse of the process of the court and illegal. P. C. , and clearly the learned S. D. J. M. , Hooghly had no material to comply with the requisition of the police mechanically which was consequently an abuse of the process of the court and illegal. ( 12 ) HENCE, it is Ordered that the proceeding concerned before and both the orders passed by both learned C. J. M. and S. D. J. M. , Hooghly dated 22-8-96 are quashed and set aside. ( 13 ) THE petitioner be released and set at liberty at once if not wanted in connection with any other case. ( 14 ) LIBERTY is, however, allowed to the police authorities concerned to act according to the requirement of the law as discussed above in which case the petitioner shall have the liberty to move the Court concerned for necessary reliefs as he may deemed necessary or may be advised and as may be permitted by law in the circumstances prevailing at that time. ( 15 ) THE Department is directed to communicate this order forthwith. ( 16 ) LET a plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Advocate for the petitioner. Order accordingly.