RUDAL SAH VS.

STATE OF BIHAR [(1983) 4 SCC

141]
                                                                            
                 in 1968, Rudul Sah was acquitted of a
murder charge by a criminal court in Muzaffarpur,
Bihar yet he languished in jail for fourteen years
after that. In 1982, he filed a habeas corpus in the
Supreme Court seeking his release from unlawful
custody. He was finally released after he filed a writ
but before the date of the Supreme Court hearing.
In this case, the apex court observed that there was
the bridge of fundamental right of petitioner of
Article 21-Right to life and liberty and awarded
compensation to Sah.
BHIM SINGH VS STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
(1985)                                                       In
this case, Bhim Singh, a member of the legislative
Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, was unlawfully
arrested to prevent him from attending the
assembly session. His wife filed a petition before
Supreme Court seeking his release. Though Bhim
Singh was released before the hearing, the court
observed that in such cases of illegal detention,
the illegality could not be ‘washed away or wished
away’ merely by freeing the person and ordered
the state to pay Bhim Singh monetary
compensation of 50,000 rupees.
JOGINDER KUMAR VS STATE OF U.P [(1994) 4 SCC
260] In this case the Apex Court ruled that an
arrested person being held in custody is entitled, if
he so requests, to have one friend, relative or other
persons interested in his welfare, told that he has
been arrested and where he is being detained. The
police officer shall inform the arrested person when
he is brought to the police station of this right. An
entry shall be requested to be made in the diary as
to who was informed of the arrest. The magistrate
is obliged to satisfy himself that these requirements
have been complied with.
K BASU VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL [AIR 1997 SC 610] This
case is  the landmark in which steps were taken to prevent “Custodial
torture”. This matter was brought before the court by Dr. D.K Basu,
Executive Chairman of the Legal Aid Services, and an NGO of West
Bengal through a PIL. He addressed a letter to the Chief justice
drawing his attention to certain news items published in the
newspapers regarding deaths in the police lock – ups and custody.
This letter was treated as the writ petition by the Supreme Court. In
this case, the Supreme Court took a serious note of custodial violence
and death in police lock-up. To check the abuse of police power,
transparency of public action and accountability are two possible
safeguards. 
OF HARYANA VS DINESH KUMAR [(2008) 3 SCC
222]                                                 In this case, the issue was
what constituted the  arrest and custody in relation to criminal
proceedings. In other words, whether the manner in which
respondent had appointed appeared before the magistrate and
was released without being taken into formal custody that could
amount the arrest. The respondent without surrendering to the
police had appeared before the magistrate with his lawyer and
was immediately granted bail. The high Court held that since the
accused had neither surrendered nor had been taken into custody,
could not be said that he had actually been arrested. The Supreme
Court disagreed with the High Court. It held that even in such
circumstances, the appearance of the accused before the
magistrate amounts to arrest. It held that a person can be in
custody not merely when the police arrest him, produces him
before a magistrate and gets a remand to judicial or other
custody. He can be stated to be in judicial custody when he
surrenders before the Court and submits to its directions. 
ARNESH KUMAR VS STATE OF BIHAR [(2014) 8 SCC 273]
                                                         In this case, the apex
Court emphasized the need for caution in exercising the drastic
power of arrest by the police and also by the Magistrate while
authorizing detention of the accused. It would be prudent and
wise for a police officer that no arrest is made without a
reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the
genuineness of the allegation. In short, the police officers should
not arrest the accused unnecessarily and magistrate does not
authorize detention casually and mechanically.