ARREST

In criminal procedure, it usually starts with report, arrest, search, prosecution, summary trial.
Setion 173 CPC – Procedure of summary trial. (Accused is brought to the court, trial, convicted,
appeal.)
Arrest is the first step in criminal proceeding against a suspected person. – Christie v
Leachinsky
Arrest – deprivation of personal liberty by a legal authority. Arrest must be done in
accordance to the law as personal liberty is a fundamental right as provided by Article 5 of
the Federal Constitution. Arrest is an apprehension of a person by legal authority resulting in
deprivation of his personal liberty and it is normally done so that the people abide with the
law.

5 categories of person may effect an arrest. 1. Police Officer 2. Penghulu 3. Magistrate 4.

Justice of Peace 5. A private person.
Arrest means that apprehension or actual touch on a person's body for purpose to deprive his
personal liberty. There are two types of arrest, arrest with warrant (non-seizable offence) and
arrest without warrant (seizable offence). Seizable offence is more serious.
Arrest without warrant/ Seizable offence
Section 2 CPC – an offence for which a police officer may ordinarily arrest without warrant
according to the third column of First Schedule in CPC. (3 years and above imprisonment in
Penal Code – Seizable)
Section 23 CPC empowers police officer or a Penghulu to arrest without a warrant.
Section 2 Police Act 1967 – Any member of the Royal Malaysian Police and includes an
officer from the rank of police constable up to the Inspector General of Police.
Section 23(1)(a) separated into 4 limbs where arrest which warrant can be carried out.
(i) Any person who has been concerned in any such offence
(ii) Against whom a reasonable complaint has been made
(iii) Against whom credible information has been received
(iv) Against who a reasonable suspicion exist.
Any person who has been concerned in any such offence
Offence refer to offence under Penal Code. At the end of the First Schedule, there are clauses
for offence under the other act, which the offence should be the offence that is punishable with
death sentence, imprisonment for more than 3 years. IF the offence is punishable with
imprisonment less than 3 years or only with fine, it is non-seizable offence. However, there are
offence which was punishable with imprisonment less than 3 years but is categorized as
seizable offence. (Section 27(6) Police Act 1976 – every offence committed under Police Act
can be arrested without warrant)
Against whom a reasonable complaint has been made
It refers to the police report. Report, by referring to Section 107 CPC is the information of
offences given to the police. If someone made a report, police can then arrest people.
Tan Kay Teck & Anor v AG – to consider whether a complaint is reasonable or not, the court
will look at the fact of the case and objective test is to be used to determine whether a
complaint is reasonable or not. In this case, the sub-contractor complained to the police that he
was confined by the contractor in a room to discuss the payment of the work done and the
sub-contractor refused to accept the lower payment. The contractor was arrested and charged
under Section 347 of Penal Code for wrongful confinement to extort money. The contractor
was later acquitted and discharged and then claimed for damages for wrongful arrest. Court
held that there was no reasonable complaint on the facts.
Against whom credible information has been received
Information that is reliable or can be believed, bare assertion without anything more cannot
amount to credible information.
Hashim bin Saud v Yahaya bin Hashim & Anor – the court held that in considering whether
the information is credible, if the information against the plaintiff was credible in that previous
cases, information given by the informant was proved to be reliable as the previous
information has led to arrests, prosecutions and convictions.
Against who a reasonable suspicion exist
Shaaban & Ors v Chong Fook Kam & Anor – a piece of wood fell from a timber lorry hitting
a car and killing one of the two men in it. The lorry did not stop. The two respondents were
arrested at 7.00 am on July 11, 1965 and detained on suspicion that one of them had driven
the lorry in a rash and negligent manner resulting in a piece of wood falling and killing one of
the men in the car. Later in the day, their explanations of alibi were found to be false and
they were further detained.
Privy Council after looking at the fact of the cases held that there were two stages of arrest in
this case. For the first arrestment, the arrest was unlawful because the circumstances were such
that there was no reasonable suspicion. The second detention was however lawful as when the
defence of alibi was discounted, there was reasonable suspicion that one of them had driven
the lorry in rash and negligent manner.
FC distinguish prima facie proof and reasonable suspicion. Suspicion at a stage of conjecture
whilst proof is lacking. Suspicion arise at or near the starting point of police investigation,
prima facie proof in the end. Suspicion take into account matters not admissible as evidence or
matters that could not form part of prima facie case, prima facie proof is otherwise.
PC – suspicion is at starting point of police investigation, prima facie proof is at the end.
Tan Eng Hoe v AG – the applicant was mistakenly being arrested for a cheating case as he
fitted the description of the offender. After further investigation, the police found out that the
applicant was not the real offender. The applicant sued for wrongful arrest. The court held
that the police was justified in arresting him without warrant as a reasonable man would have
suspected the applicant as the offender with all the similarities.
Mahmood v Government of Malaysia & Anor – The plaintiff sued the defendants alleging
that he was unlawfully and negligently shot at and wounded by a police officer at the Lake
Garden. The police officer was dong his duty as he had heard screams of help from a women
at about 2.20 am and he saw two men running away. Issue: Whether there exist sufficient
ground to raise a reasonable suspicion? Held: there is reasonable suspicion in that particular
case depends on the fact of the case.
Section 23(1)(b) – police officer may arrest when a person is in possession of any implement
of housebreaking without lawful excuse.
PP v Chong Ing Chu – in this case, the accused was being arrested at around 5 am in an
open garage in a housing area. During that time, the accused was carrying a knapsack with a
garden scoop, a torchlight, a multi-purpose lunch set, a bottle-opener fitted with knife and
spike. When he was being arrested, he explained that he was searching for a wedding ring
which he had dropped the previous day whilst jogging in that area. The court held that the
articles are capable of being used for housebreaking purposes, they could constitute
implements of housebreaking. Thus, the arrest could be made without warrant.
Section 23(1)(c)- proclaimed under Section 44 of the CPC (absconded)
Section 23(1)(d) – suspected to possess stolen property
Abdul Razak v PP – The court held that there are two conditions to be fulfilled under this
section. It is for the Court to be satisfied that the circumstances were such that the police officer
had grounds for suspicion that the property in the accused's possession was stolen property
and that such suspicion was reasonable.
Section 23(1)(e) – who obstructs the duty of the officer, or escapes, or attempts to escape.
PP v Ong Kee Seong – The court held that this section is only applicable if the police was
carrying out his duty in accordance to law. In this case, a party of police officers conducted a
raid on the premises without search warrant and the search is not permissible by the law.
During the course of the raid the respondent resisted arrest by a show of force, to wit he
kicked in the abdomen of one officer and bit the leg of another. The court held that the arrest
itself was illegal and the resistance thereto was not unlawful
Section 23(1)(f) – suspected of deserting the Armed Forces of the Federation.
Section 23(1)(g) – is hiding himself with intent to commit a seizable offence.
Section 23(1)(h) – who cannot account for his standard of living.
Section 23(1)(i) – who is a habitual criminal (robbery, housebreaker, thief, receiver of stolen
property, or extortionist)
Section 23(1)(j) – who is in the act of committing in his presence a breach of peace.
State v Albright – the police reached the administration of the test was carried out 20 minutes
later. The court held that although wrongful act can only carry out in the presence if the police,
according to the case, the mistreatment ought to be carry out in the presence of the police
even if the police was late.
Section 23(1)(k) – fails to comply with Section 296 CPC when uder police supervision

Section 24 – Police can arrest without warrant when any person in the presence of a police
officer or penghulu commits or is accused of committing a non-seizable offence
i) refuses on the demand of a police officer or penghulu to give his name and residence
or
ii) gives a name or residence which the officer has reason to believe to be false
iii) Address given is address overseas
Section 25 - A penghulu making an arrest without a warrant shall without unnecessary delay
hand over the person so arrested to the nearest police officer or in the absence of a police
officer take such person to the nearest police station, and a police officer shall rearrest every
person so arrested.
John Lewis & Co LTD v. Tims – A woman suspected of theft in a large department store was
arrested outside by store detectives and taken back into the shop where the managing
director considered the case and, having decided to prosecute her, immediately sent for
police officers to whom she was given in charge. The court held that inasmuch as she was not
detained beyond a reasonable time for the managing director to make his decision, the
owners of the shop were not liable in damages for false imprisonment
Section 27 – Arrest by private person. 3 conditions:
i. commits seizable offence
ii. commits non-bailable offence
iii. in his view/iin his sight/ in his opinion, opinion of private person offence has been
carried out
Sam Hong Choy v PP – a private person heard a gunshot and shouts of help in a robbery
and saw two men running away. He gave a chase and arrested the accused. The court held
that when a man commits a non-bailable and seizable offence and then tries to escape, the
whole transaction is treated as one transaction and a private person who either sees him
committing the offence or running immediately after the commission of the offence is entitled to
arrest him. It is according to the circumstantial evidence. In his view means in his presence or
within his sight but not mere suspicion or opinion.
Metro (Golden Mile) Pte Ltd v Paul Chua Wah Liang - The case involved alleged shoplifting
by Paul Chua Wah Liang and his five children by two employees of Metro. Arrest by a
private person need to come to a strict view. The court held that the offence of theft must have
been committed in the sight of the private person before the arrest becomes lawful and that
mere opinion is insufficient.
Durga Singh & Karta Singh – the court held that a private person can arrest if the offence is
carried out in his presence, which should be in his sight.
Walters v WH Smith & Son Ltd – in common law, the court held that as long as a private
person has a reasonable reason and in his opinion believe that the accused had carried out
seizable offence, he can arrest. But with one condition, the offence must have been carried
out.

Non-seizable offence
Section 5 SCA – any magistrate or judge of session court can issue warrant to arrest. Warrant
to arrest is enforceable in anywhere in Malaysia.
Section 38 CPC – Form of warrant of arrest
Section 40 CPC – warrant to whom directed.
Re Rasiah Munasamy – warrant to arrest need to state down the ground of arrestment
Section 41 CPC – Notification of Substance of warrant
See Kah Loon – Police in this case has obtained a warrant of arrest. However, it was left in
the police station. The court held that the arrest was not lawful as Section 41 was not abide
with.
Section 42 - Person arrested to be brought before Court without delay. Art 5(4) of FC,
appear before the court within 24 hours.
Whether police has violated Section 42 of CPC if one is being detained less than 24 hours?
Kuann Kwai Choi v Ak Zaidi bin Pg. Metali – in that case, the police arrested a woman and
brought her to the police station and locked her up from 1030am to 430pm. When she was
brought to the court, the court operating hour was over. Whether during the time 1030am to
430 pm, the police has violated the law although delay was less than 24 hours? Held – The
court found that there was unnecessary delay ini this case as no effort was made to take the
plaintiff in front of a magistrate during that time. It was against section 42 as Art 5(4) FC only
provided the maximum hour, even if it was less than 24 hours, the delay was unreasonable.
Section 43 - When a warrant of arrest is executed outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of
the Court by which it was issued the person arrested shall, unless security is taken under section
39, be brought before the nearest Magistrate.
Section 44 – 4 types of proclamation for person absconding
i. Proclamation be publicly read in the village he ordinarily resides
ii. Affixed the proclamation at places the person ordinarily resides
iii. Affixed to some conspicuous part of the court house.
Section 47 - Issue of warrant in lieu of or in addition to summons.
Karpal Singh v PP – Court held that there is no indication that the applicant had absconded
or that he would not obey a summons. Nor were there any reasons given by the learned
Magistrate in issuing the warrant. In the event, the issue of a warrant was wrong in law and
therefore illegal.
Section 49 - Power to take bond for appearance
Sebastian v PP - the correct procedure where a man surrenders himself to a warrant of arrest
would be to put him on bond for his appearance on the date and then release him.

Mode of Arrest
Section 15 CPC- In making an arrest the police officer or other person making the same shall
actually touch or confine the body of the person to be arrested unless there is a submission to
the custody by word or action.
Section 15(2) - If such person forcibly resists the endeavour to arrest him or attempts to evade
the arrest such officer or other person may use all means necessary to effect the arrest.
Section 15(3) - Nothing in this section gives a right to cause the death of a person who is not
accused of an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for life.
Shaaban & Ors v PP – 3 situations to constitute a valid arrest.
i) Where the police officer states in terms that he is arresting
ii) Where the police officer uses forces to restrain the person sought to be arested
iii) Where the police officer makes it clear by words or conduct that he will use force
if necessary to prevent the person sought to be arrested from going where he may
want to go
Jayaraman & Ors v PP – There was a fight in a hindu Temple. Corporal Abdul Ghani
went to the temple with the Indians and there he saw the eight applicants and the priest of
the temple. He told them not to leave the place. A.S.P. Jamaluddin arrived at the temple
at 3.35 a.m. and questioned the applicants. Their replies to the A.S.P. became an issue as
regards admissibility, it being contended that they had been arrested when the Corporal
told them not to leave the temple and they had not been cautioned before they gave their
replies and therefore their replies were not admissible. on the facts in the case it could not
be said that the applicants had been arrested by the corporal when he told them to wait
and not to leave the temple, for he had merely stopped them to make inquiries into the
attack on the temple. Hence, no caution is required to be given by the police that he is
arresting. However, the replies obtained can still be accepted by the court.
Constructive arrest means when one person was being arrested without caution but the
facts shown it clear that he was being arrested.
PP v Salleh bin Saad – the accused was charged with an offence of drug trafficking.
Acting in information, the customs officers raided the accused’s house. Two sacks were
found in the car which was searched and a few question has been answered by the
accused upon being questioned. Section 37A(1) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 provided that
all the admission is not admissible if the statements were made after arrestment but in this
case not caution was given. The court held that in this case, there has not been any
arrestment when the statements were made and thus, the admission was admissible.
PP v Tan Chye Joo & Anor - In the present case, although PW4 said that the first accused
was not free to go as he liked during the search, that did not mean that he had been
arrested. The first accused was placed under arrest by PW4 only after the discovery of
the drugs. He said 'ubat cina' before the discovery of the drugs, ie before PW4 opened
the tin. His statement to PW4 was therefore admissible. There must be actual arrest.
PP v Rosyatimah – constructive arrest is sufficient and should constitute as a valid arrest
already.
PP v Johari Abdul Kadir - At the time when the accused unlocked the bag, he was
already under arrest because by that time the liberty of the accused to move freely had
been curtailed and that PW1 (Inspector Othman bin Senik) by his conduct clearly showed
that he would if necessary use force to restrain the accused from moving freely. In the
circumstances therefore, the accused was under arrest before the question was put to him
by PW1 and no caution was administered to him to elicit the answer. Therefore the
statement said to be made by the accused in answer to the question by PW1 is not
admissible.
PP v Kang Ho Soh – The court held that whether there was an arrest must refer to the
facts of the case. Nothing in Section 113 mentioned about actual/constructive arrest. Thus,
only one type of arrest is sufficient. Whether in a particular case a person was under
actual arrest at a given moment of time is a question of fact, to be decided according to
the circumstances of each case. Each decisions was made on the facts if the particular acse
and the conclusions of facts are not to be treated as law.
R v Inwood – the court held that what constitute as an arrest is when one was not free to
move to the direction in he favours.
Lim Hock Boon v PP – whether a person was being arrested depends on the fact of the
case. The COA held that it was clear that the appellant was being arrested when Chief
Inspector switched off the engine and took possession of the car keys. This is why the
admission of appellate is inadmissible. However, FC held that there was no arrestment as
the police was only stopping the vehicle and made inquiry.

Rights of Arrested Person

Right to be inform on the ground of arrest.
When a person is arrested, article 5(3) of the FC & Section 28A(1) requires that he shall
be informed as soon as may be of the grounds of his arrest.
Christie & Anor v Leachinsky – an arrested person must be informed of the true grounds
of his arrest forthwith and if the reason was withheld, the arrest and detention would
amount to false imprisonment, which the police may be liable for, until the time he was told
the reason. However, the police need not so inform if the arrested person should know the
general nature of the alleged offence of which he was arrested or the arrested person
himself made it practically impossible to inform him.
Abdul Rahman v Tan Jo Kah – a person arrested without being told the reason is
entitled to resist the arrest and any force used to overcome the resistance would amount to
assault.
Art 5(4) FC and Section 28(3) CPC – Right to be brought before a magistrate within 24
hours
Arrested person to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours without unreasonable
delay. Arrest without warrant as well. 24 hours do not include the time spend on the
journey sending to court. Kuan Kwai Choi v Ak Zaidi bin Pg. Metali.
Who can give remand under Section 117 CPC?
Satvindar Singh – remand order was given by Registrar of Session Court. The issue is
whether Registrar of session court can give remand order? The court, by referring to SCA,
held that remand can be given by any magistrate, including second class magistrate or ex
officio magistrate. Registrar or Session Court is within the category of magistrate ex
officio.
Re N – The accused was a child and the Magistrate has altered the application of
remand under Section 117 of CPC to Section 84(2) of Child Act 2001 and order the
accused to be detained in accordance with the law. The Magistrate later refer the case to
 High Court to reviw on the decision. The court held that the decision was correct as Section
117 of CPC is not applicable to children.
What police should do to get a remand order?
Hashim bin Saad v Yahya bin Hashim – The court held that to enable the Magistrate to
make the decision whether to detain or not the police must supply the Magistrate a copy
of the investigation diary—section 117(i) C.P.C. This copy of the investigation diary to be
transmitted to the Magistrate must contain all the particulars as required under section 119
C.P.C., that is to say, the police must tell the Magistrate all they know so far up to time of
application and not what they think the Magistrate need only know. The Police need to
also satisfy the Magistrate that further detention is needed to investigate. The failure to
transmit to the magistrate a copy of the entries was fatal to the application before the
magistrate.
Re The Detention of R Sivarasa & Ors – The court set aside the magistrate’s remand
order and held that the magistrate failed to appreciate the strict nature of S117 of CPC
that it is mandatory duty for the police officer to transmit to the magistrate a copy of the
entries in the diary which was not done here and thus was fatal to the application for the
extension of detention, as it meant that the magistrate did not have necessary material to
act upon to decide whether to order further demand.
Ramli bin Salleh v Inspector Yahya bin Hashim – Magistrate authorising under this
section detention in the custody shall record his reason in doing so, in writing.

How long should the period of detention be given?

According to Section 117 of CPC, the maximum period is of 15 days. 3 issues:
i. Whether 15 days include previous detention? No need to include but no case to
support.
ii. Can the Magistrate grant remand of 15 days all at once?
Ramli bin Salleh v Inspector Yahya bin Hashim – The corut held that according
to this section, the Magistrate should not approve the application of remand for 15
days at once. The Court urge the Magistrate to look at the stage of the
investigation and decide accordingly on how many days the court think sufficient
for police to complete the investigation. In the case when the days allowed for
remand is not sufficient for the police to complete its investigation, the police can
apply for more.
(<14 years, < 4 days for 1st time remand, < 3 days for 2nd time remand)
(>14 years, <7 days for first remand, < 7 for second remand)

iii. What happen if after 15 days, the investigation by the police is not completed
yet? Can the police release and re-arrest the person and thus give the police extra
15 days?
According to this case, it can be done but no case law to support.
If the detention is not valid, would it come with any effect to the proceeding?
Gabriel v PP – the accused pleaded guilty to the offences of theft under S380 of Penal Code.
He was convicted and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment and a fine of RM2,000 in default
six months’ imprisonment. The accused appealed against his conviction and sentence and
alternatively asked for a revision of this case. The court dismissed the appeal as the accused
has pleaded guilty and held that the breach of Section 28 of CPC, even if it is true, will not
render the subsequent proceedings illegal. The accused may sue for damages for non-
compliance with this procedural law.
The accused had already pleaded guilty to the charge of theft. The only irregularity was that
the accused was detained for more than 24 hours and this would not quash his conviction. The
accused would be entitled to bring a civil suit for wrongful detention.
If someone is under remand, whether OKT can be represented by legal practitioner?
Saul Hamid v PP - generally an arrested person has a right to be represented by a legal
practitioner in remand proceedings before a Magistrate under section 117 unless the police
can discharge the onus of satisfying the Magistrate that to allow him to exercise that right
would result in undue interference with the course of investigation. But for now, whether it
influence or not, the accused has the rights. / The court held that a person in remand
proceedings is entitled to legal representation and the burden lies on the police to prove that
there will be interruption in their investigation. Further, the judge has referred to Section 255
of CPC wherein every person accused before any criminal Court may be advocate of their
own to defend them.

If someone was charge with bailable offence, and the police has applied for remand under
Section 117, when the accused is willing to pay the bail, whether he should be released with
bail?
Maja anak Kus v PP – In the case where the accused is arrested for a bailable offence, S387
of CPC provides that he is entitled to a bail as a right. However, if he is produced before the
magistrate under S117 of the CPC, the right of bail is subject to the request of the police for a
remand under S117, which means S117 overrides S387.
Right to communicate or attempt to communicate and consult with a legal practitioner of his
choice
Art 5(3) FC & Section 28A(2) CPC
Section 28A(2) – police before commencing any form or questioning or recording of any
statement of person arrested must made known to them right to counsel.
Ramli bin Salleh v Inspector Yahya bin Hashim – 3 things to focus
i. This right begins from the day of his arrest even though police investigation has not
yet been completed
ii. That such restrictions may relate to time and convenience of both the police and the
person seeking the interview and should not be subject to any abuse by either
party
iii. That in order to render such interview effective it should be held not within the
hearing of any member of the police though within their sight (Section 11 Evidence
Act)
iv. Police cannot unreasonable delay or restrict the right to counsel of the accused as
this will deprive his rights.
Is this rights commenced at the time when the person was arrested? Regardless the nature of
the offence?
Lee Mau Seng v Minister of Home Affairs, Singapore – In this case the accused was arrested
under ISA. Issue: whether the accused has the rights to counsel? The court held that the accused
has the right to legal representation within a reasonable time after his arrest.
Whether the accused has the rights to be told about his rights?
Ooi Ah Phua v OCCI Kedah/Perlis – the right of an arrested person to consult his lawyer
begins from the moment of arrest but that right cannot be exercised immediately after arrest.
A balance has to be struck between the right of the arrested person to consult his lawyers on
the one hand and on the other the duty of the police to protect the public from wrongdoers by
apprehending them and collecting whatever evidence exists against them. The right should not
be exercised to the detriment of any investigation by the police.
When can this right to counsel be used?

Hashim bin Saad v Yahya bin Hashim - When the plaintiff was first detained by the police
under section 28 of the Criminal Procedure Code, i.e. within the first 24 hours after his arrest,
the right is normally not exercisable unless he can prove that mala fide of authorized party
that purposely restrict the accused to counsel. However, after 24 hours, the burden of prove
shifted to the police to show that they can restrict the right to counsel for that investigation.
With the amendment of S28A CPC, this case no longer relevant.
A person is entitled to be represented by counsel of his choice if that counsel is willing and
able to represent him.
Sim Kee Guan v PP - In this case, as the counsel concerned is the subject of a detention order
under preventive detention law it cannot be said that he is able to represent the accused even
though he may be more than willing to do so. he mere fact that an accused may require the
production of the person detained is not conclusive of the matter, though of course it is a
relevant consideration. It has not been alleged that the trial of the applicant in this case will
involve difficult questions of law but, even if it does, it cannot be said that the counsel
detained, Mr. Karpal Singh, possesses experience of a nature not available amongst
advocates and solicitors in Malaysia. The condition precedent for invoking the power to order
production of a detained person, namely, that his presence is required by the court, has not
been satisfied and therefore the application must be dismissed.
Right to communicate with a relative or his friends.
Right of private or self defence.
PP v Kok Khee – Police seized the “daching” of a vegetable hawker and the respondent he
resisted with force. The court held that it was justifiable for the respondent to put up a struggle
since he was resisting an illegal or unjustifiable use of force against him. The respondent is
entitled to prevent or resist what ostensibly was an unlawful seizure or confiscation of the
'daching' which was his private property.
Khor Ah Kah v PP - The son of the appellant was selling handkerchiefs on a small stall and
was arrested by the police and the mom resist the arrest by using force against the police. The
court held that the police has failed to prove that the police constable was in law a public
servant acting "in the execution of his duty" and thus the forced used was allowed.
Right to remedies for wrongful arrest and detention.
Selvakumar a/l Subramaniam -
Plaintiff’s arrest and detention was unlawful and wrongful due to non-compliance to the law.
Having regard to the circumstances of the case and in particular the fact that the plaintiff had
been deprived of his liberty unlawfully and wrongfully for a substantially long period of 826
days he was entitled to aggravated and exemplary damages. Thus, the plaintiff was
awarded damages of RM779,500 for unlawful detention and aggravated and exemplary
damages of RM50,000 and RM150,000 respectively.
Rights to apply for writ of habeas corpus
Section 365 CPC – Application make to High Court to immediately release illegally or
improperly detained person.
Ketua Polis Negara v Abdul Ghani Haroon - that the High Court or any judge should order
a detainee to be produced in court and release him after being satisfied that the detention
was unlawful but the right of a detained person to be present at the habeas corpus
proceeding was not a constitutional right but at the discretion of the court.

Extra Power of Police in making arrestment

Section 16 CPC – search of place entered by person sought to be arested
Section 18 – Power to break open any place for purpose liberation
Section 11 – requires assiatcne of public