CRPC CASE ANALYSIS

FACTS

The Applicant, Arnesh Kumar had preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme
Court after having failed to secure anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge and thereafter,
the High Court of Bihar in a matrimonial dispute. allegation levelled by the wife against the
Appellant is that illicit demand of dowry, an offence punishable under section 498A of IPC
and section 4 of dowry prohibition act, 1961.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court, in its Ruling, emphasized on the need for caution while exercising the
drastic power of arrest, which has for years, been treated as a tool for harassment and
oppression in the hands of the police authorities and has greatly contributed to police
corruption in India.

The Supreme Court held that no arrest should be made only because the offence is non-
bailable and cognizable or on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a
person. There are some parameters and guidelines set out that need to be complied with while
making arrest. It further clarified that even in terms of Section 41A of CrPC, where arrest of
an accused is not required, the conditions precedent to arrest as envisaged under Section 41 of
CrPC and must be complied with and shall be subject to the same scrutiny by the Magistrate.

FOCUS OF ANALYSIS

The author intends to analyse on the sec 41A that was inserted in The Code of Criminal
Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 2008 and the application and the repercussions of it. The
author would also highlight on the arbitrary and the indiscriminatory employment of the
power of the police to arrest. The author would focus on the problematic clause of the sec
41and the effects of law commission reports and the amendments. The author would also
throw a light on sec 498A of IPC.