ARNESH KUMAR versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 8 S.C.R. 128 · Decided: 02-07-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 25 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 128 
ARNESH KUMAR 
V. 
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1277 of 2014) 
JULY 2, 2014 
[CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND PINAKI 
. 
CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
s.41and 167 -
Arrest by police without warrant -
Of 
persons accused of offences punishable with imprisonment 
upto seven years - Held: Section 41 makes it evident that a 
person accused of offence punishable with imprisonment for 
0 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 -
Before arrest police officer to 
record his satisfaction with regard to factors enumerated in 
E clauses (a) to (e) of s.41(1) -
Arrest brings humiliation, 
curtails freedom and casts scars forever -
The need for 
caution in exercising the drastic power of arrest has been 
emphasized time and again by courts but has not yielded 
desired result - The attitude to arrest first and then proceed 
with rest is despicable - It has become a handy tool to police 
F officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motive -
No 
arrest should be made only because the offence is non-
bailable and cognizable and therefore, lawful for police officers 
to do so -
No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a 
mere allegation of commission of an offence made against 
G a person -
Directions given in order to ensure that police 
officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate 
do not authorise detention casually and mechanically -
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 498-A - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 -
s.4. 
H 
128 
ARNESH KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR 
129 
s. 41-A - Notice of appearance before police officer -
A 
Held: Where the arrest of a person is not required uls 41(1), 
police officer is required to issue notice directing the accused 
to appear before him at a specified place and time - Law 
obliges such an accused to appear before police officer and 
it further mandates that if such an accused complies with the 
B 
terms of notice he shall not be arrested, unless for reasons 
to be recorded, police officer is' of the opinion that arrest is 
necessary - At this stage a/so, condition precedent for arrest 
as envisaged uls 41 has to be complied and shall be subject 
to scrutiny by Magistrate. 
c 
s.167 r/w s. 57- Judicial Magistrate authorising accused 
to police remand - Held: The power u/s 167 to q1.1thorise 
detention is a very solemn function - It affects the liberty and 
freedom of citizens and needs to be exercised with grtiat care 
and caution - Before a Magistrate authorises detention uls 
D 
167, he has to be first satisfied that the arrest made is legal 
and in accordance with law and all the constitutional rights of 
the person arrested is satisfied -- The police officer effecting 
the arrest is required to furnish to the Magistrate, the facts, 
reasons and its conclusions for arrest and Magistrate in tum 
E 
-is to be satisfied that condition precedent for arrest uls 41 has 
been satisfied and it is only thereafter that he will authorise 
detention of an accused - Constitution on India, 1950 - Art. 
22. 
BAIL: 
Application of appellant for anticipatory bail - In a case 
involving offences uls 498-A, /PC and s.4 of Dowry Prohibition 
F 
Act - Declined by High Court - Provisional bail granted by 
Supreme Court on certain conditions - Held: Order granting 
G 
bail made absolute - Penal Code, 1860 - s.498-A - Dowry 
Prohibition Act, 1961 - s.4. 
The appellant-husband apprehending his arrest in a 
case of offences u/s 498-A IPC and s.4 of the Dowry 
H 
-
•--· 
130 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 
A Prohibition Act, 1961, having failed to secure anticipatory 
bail, filed the instant appeal. During the pendency of the 
appeal, the Supreme Court, by order dated 31.10.2013, 
granted provisional bail to the appellant. 
8 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. There is phenomenal increase in 
matrimonial disputes in recent years. Arrest bring! 
humiliation, curtails freedom and casts scars forever. Tht 
need for caution in exercising the drastic power of arres! 
C has been emphasized time and again by courts but has 
not yielded desired result. The attitude to arrest first and 
then proceed with the rest is despicable. It has become 
a handy tool to the police officers who lack sensitivity or 
act with oblique motive. No arrest should be made only 
D because the offence
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.