Arnesh Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr

 

CASE STUDY

Arnesh Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr

Citation of the Case-Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr.(2014)8 SCC 273

Date of Judgement- 2^nd July 2014

Bench-Hon’ble Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad and Hon’ble Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose

Name of the Parties- Arnesh Kumar and State of Bihar & Anr

Facts of the Case

·       The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 1^st July 2007.

·       The wife made a allegation that her mother in law and her father in law demanded Rs 8 lakhs, a Maruti car, an air-conditioner, television set etc and when it is brought in the notice of the Husband then her husband also supported the matter.

·       The petitioner also threatened her wife that he will marry another woman.

·       The wife filed a criminal complaint against her husband under section 498-A of IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

·       The petitioner made an application for anticipatory bail in the Session Court which was denied by the Honorable Court and then the High Court also rejected the anticipatory bail. Afterward the petitioner approached the Honorable Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition.

Issues

·       What are the rights available to a person before and after arrest.

·       What are the remedies available to a person if womens misuse section 498A for their own advantage.

·       Whether the Petitioner should be granted Anticipatory Bail.

·       What are the grounds that need to be checked by a Police officer before arresting  a person in a Cognizable offence.

Judgement

The Honorable Supreme Court by the way of its judgement granted provisional bail on certain conditions. The Court also observed that Section 498-A is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In many cases bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested. Arresting a person brings humiliation, curtails freedom and casts scar forever. Law makers and police know it but there is battle between them  and the police has not learnt its lesson. Power to arrest greatly contributes to its arrogance so also the failure of the Magistracy to check it. Not only this, the power of arrest is one of the lucrative sources of police corruption. The court also observed that as arresting a person curtails the freedom, brings humiliation so no arrest should be made because of the offence is Non-Bailable and Cognizable. The Court directed the Police officers to follow the section 41 of CrPC 1973 which provides a 9-point checklist which must be used to decide the need for an arrest. The court also said that a magistrate must decide whether an arrested accused is needed to be kept under further detention.

Guidelines to be followed

·       No arrest should be made as because the offence is Cognizable and Non-Bailable. The process of arrest should not be casual and not only allegations made against any person.

·       It is said that a person accused of offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer only on its satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid.

·       State Governments must inform its police officers not to arrest a person against whom complaint has been made under section 498- A IPC.

·       Notice of appearance should be served to the person under section 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure in the offences in which maximum punishment is seven years.

·       An accused person arrested by the police has the constitutional right under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 57 Cr.PC to be produced before the Magistrate without unnecessary delay and in no circumstances beyond 24 hours.

·       The decision of not arresting a accused must be forwarded to the Magistrate within 2 weeks  from the date of the institution of the case.

·       Above judgment is applicable for the offences in which the maximum punishment is seven years and not only for section 498-A IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

·       Failure to follow the instructions given by the Honorable Supreme Court would make the police officer for Contempt of Court by Honorable High Court having Jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The Landmark judgement of Honorable Supreme Court marked out the issue of misuse of Section 498-A of IPC where the court not only granted bail but also give directions to the state government and police officers how to dealt with arrest when a complaint or FIR is registered under Section 498-A of IPC and in all the cases where the punishment is less than seven years or maximum which may extend upto seven years.