Arvind Kejriwal's Bail : Live Updates From Supreme Court

J Kant: Moment there is violation, then sub-section (4) can be invoked.

ASG: S.41A will not apply in strict sense when person is in custody

J Bhuyan: Arnesh Kumar explained the situation. It's [duty] of the constitutional court...development of law...Not to make a regressive...

ASG: What is the purpose of S.41A? Ask him, interrogate him

J Bhuyan: It says "in all cases" where "arrest is not required"...it's a case where he is not to be arrested

J Bhuyan: Going by your argument, S.41A will not apply at all. Idea behind 41A is that you need not arrest in all cases. When the sentence is 7 years...

J Kant: If person is already in custody, your argument is notice is not required

ASG: Please see S.41A(4)

J Bhuyan: Read (3) before that

ASG: Notice is for purpose of making person appear before police officer. but if person is in jail, no need for notice. Permission was taken from court, there will be deemed notice

J Bhuyan: Is there a judgment to say notice was not required?

ASG: His case is also that there is violation of S.41A CrPC. kindly look at S.41A

ASG: In RK Arora, this court has held Pankaj Bansal is prospective. At the time of remand also, we have detailed grounds of arrest. role of accused, need for custodial interrogation, everything...he was aware why he was arrested

ASG: Remand application also contained grounds of arrest. given to him on the same day as arrest. It was not required, but he was supplied. Issue in Pankaj Bansal was different. It said oral communication is not sufficient.

ASG: On 26th June, he was produced before the court. He was provided copies of applications, including remand application.