Why in News?

A bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar noted that the High Court shall frame directions adhering to guidelines given in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014).

• These guidelines are to be followed by the sessions courts and all other criminal courts dealing with various offences punishable by a maximum jail term of seven years.
• The court has emphasized upon the value of personal liberty in the context of applying discretion to grant bail.
• The court made the observation while hearing the matter of Md Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.

Background

• The appellant in this case alleges that the respondent-wife was not happy, and her father used to interfere and pressurize him and his family.
• This led to complaints lodged against the wife’s family for threatening the appellant’s family.
• Later, an FIR was registered against the appellant and his brother and others, complaining of commission of offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
• Apprehending the arrest, the appellant filed an application for anticipatory bail in Sessions Court and later, in High Court.
• All this while, the appellant cooperated with the investigation, after this the charge sheet was filed before the Session Judge.
  • Both Sessions Court and High Court heard the matter.
• When the matter came before the Apex Court the appellant contended that the distinction between the existence of the power (to arrest) and the justification of exercising it must always be kept in mind.

Court’s Observation

• The court observed that routine arrest must be stopped in cases where alleged offences carry a maximum punishment of up to seven years in jail.

Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014)

• It is a landmark judgment where the Supreme Court acknowledged the abuse of Section 498-A Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The court noted that this provision is misused as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives.
• It is a landmark judgment where the Supreme Court gave directions to police officers regarding arrest according to Section 41, 41A and other essentials of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
• The court said that these directions shall not only apply to the case under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code, 1860 or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years, whether with or without fine.
• The court while pronouncing the judgement endeavored to ensure that police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize detention casually and mechanically.
• The Judgment was later reiterated in several cases including Satendra Kumar Antil v. Centra Bureau of Investigation (2022).

Guidelines in Arnesh Kumar Judgment

The following guidelines were laid down by the court:

1. All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 CrPC;
2. All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);
3. The police officer- shall forward the check list duly filled and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;
4. The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention;
5. The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
6. Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A CrPC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the 10 Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
7. Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction.
8. Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.