Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar (2014) case, (Arnesh Kumar

Guidelines), is an important ruling by the Indian Supreme Court. This ruling emphasises
that arrests should not be common, especially when the potential punishment is less
than seven years of imprisonment. The guidelines instruct the police to carefully assess
whether an arrest is truly necessary according to Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure
Code (CrPC).

It is the responsibility of police officers to ensure that they follow the principles set by
the Supreme Court in their various decisions. Before allowing prolonged detention, a
judicial magistrate must review the report from the police officer and confirm its validity.

This decision was supported by activists advocating for men’s rights, but it faced
criticism from activists fighting for women’s rights.

If the rules outlined in Section 41A of the CrPC and the Arnesh Kumar Guidelines for
arrest are disregarded, legal actions can be taken against the police officials involved.

Contents hide

1. Facts of Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar

2. Issues Raised
3. Legal Provisions Addressed
4. Judgement in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar
5. Arnesh Kumar Guidelines
6. Aftermath of Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar
7. Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar Summary

Facts of Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar

Arnesh Kumar, the person who brought the case to court, is married to Sweta Kiran.
They had their wedding ceremony on July 1st, 2007.

The wife alleges that her mother-in-law and father-in-law asked for a dowry of Rs. 8 lac,
a Maruti car, an air-conditioner, a television set and other things. She says that when she
told Arnesh Kumar about this, he sided with his mother and even threatened to marry
someone else.

Additionally, she states that she was forced to leave the marital home because the
dowry demands were not met.
The person accused, Arnesh Kumar, denies these accusations. He tried to get
anticipatory bail, a legal protection against arrest before a potential charge, but his
request was turned down by both the Sessions Judge and the High Court.

Since his attempt to secure anticipatory bail was unsuccessful, he brought his case to
the Supreme Court through a Special Leave petition as Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar.

Issues Raised
Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar revolved around these main questions:

 Can the person (the appellant) apply for anticipatory bail?

 Should a police officer arrest someone based on a complaint if that person is
suspected of a serious offence? If yes, what guidelines should the investigating
agency follow during the arrest?
 What actions can be taken if a woman misuses Section 498-A of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, which deals with marital cruelty?

Legal Provisions Addressed

The following provisions were addressed in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar:

 Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

 Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
 Sections 41, 41A, 57, 167, 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
 Article 22 (2) of the Constitution of India, 1950

Judgement in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar

On July 2, 2014, the Supreme Court responded to a Special Leave Petition (SPL) filed by
Arnesh Kumar, who challenged his and his family’s arrest under this law. In the case of
Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar & Anr., a two-judge panel of the Supreme Court
examined the application of section 41(1)(A) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC),
which outlines certain procedures before making an arrest.

The court in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar observed that Section 498A had turned into
a potent tool for discontented wives, resulting in the arrest of innocent individuals
without substantial evidence, mainly because the law is non-bailable and cognizable.
The Supreme Court recognised that some women were misusing the anti-dowry law
(Section 498A) to trouble their husbands and in-laws. As a response, the court restricted
the police from making arrests solely based on complaints.

Further, the court in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar directed the police to adhere to
Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provides a checklist to
determine the necessity of an arrest. Additionally, the court stated that a magistrate
must assess whether a detained accused person should be kept in further custody. This
decision aimed to strike a balance between preventing misuse of the law and protecting
the rights of those accused.

Arnesh Kumar Guidelines

The Supreme Court of India, in Paragraph 13 of its judgment in Arnesh Kumar vs State
of Bihar, issued directions to prevent unnecessary arrests by police officers and
unwarranted detention authorised by magistrates. The Court provided the following
guidelines as Arnesh Kumar Guidelines:

 State Governments must instruct their police officers not to automatically arrest
someone when a case is registered under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Arrest should only be considered if the situation aligns with the criteria outlined
in section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
 All police officers should have a checklist containing specific clauses mentioned in
Section 41(1)(b)(ii).
 When producing the accused before the magistrate for further detention, the
police officer should submit the checklist along with reasons and evidence
justifying the arrest.
 Magistrates, when authorising further detention, should rely on the report
provided by the police officer. The magistrate should only approve continued
detention after recording the reasons furnished in the police report and being
satisfied with them.
 The decision not to arrest an accused individual should be communicated to the
magistrate within two weeks from the initiation of the case. The Superintendent
of Police can extend this timeframe, with recorded reasons.
 The accused person should be served with a Notice of Appearance according to
Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure within two weeks from the case’s
initiation. This time frame can be extended by the Superintendent of Police with
written reasons.
 Failure to follow these directions could result in the police officer being held in
contempt of court by the appropriate High Court.
  Judicial Magistrates who authorise detention without recording reasons may face
departmental proceedings initiated by the High Court.

Aftermath of Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar

In 2014, there were reports stating that the Arnesh Kumar Guidelines issued by the
Supreme Court of India were not being followed by police stations due to
communication gaps.

In May 2021, the amicus curiae (an impartial adviser to the court) raised concerns that
the Madhya Pradesh Police were not adhering to the Arnesh Kumar guidelines. The
Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered the Director General of Police (DGP) to ensure that
the police follow these guidelines. Those who had been arrested without following the
Arnesh Kumar Guidelines were allowed to seek regular bail based on the violation of
these guidelines. The court also urged the State Judicial Academy to educate police
officers and judicial magistrates about these guidelines.

In 2021, during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in India, the Supreme Court
emphasised that arrests should not be made in contradiction to the Arnesh Kumar
Guidelines, given the overcrowding of prisons.

In November 2021, the Telangana High Court, while addressing a petition, granted the
petitioner the right to initiate legal proceedings against police officials if they violated
the procedure outlined in Section 41A CrPC and the Arnesh Kumar Guidelines. The court
directed the police to strictly adhere to the procedure and guidelines, highlighting the
seriousness of any deviation.

On January 4th, in a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court found a police officer
guilty of contempt of court for arresting a man in violation of the principles established
by the Supreme Court in the Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar case. The police officer was
sentenced to one day of imprisonment for contempt of court.

In August 2022, the Allahabad High Court held a police officer accountable for
contempt for disregarding the ‘Arnesh Kumar Guidelines’. The court sentenced the
police officer to 14 days of imprisonment.

Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar Summary

In the case of Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar, the Indian Supreme Court issued
guidelines regarding the arrest of individuals under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal
Code, a provision related to marital cruelty. The Court emphasised that arrests should be
an exception rather than the norm, particularly for offences carrying a punishment of
less than seven years’ imprisonment.

The Court in Arnesh Kumar versus State of Bihar directed police to adhere to the
principles of Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code and provided a 9-point checklist
for arrest consideration. Magistrates were instructed to evaluate the necessity of
detention before authorising it. The decision aimed to prevent misuse of the law while
safeguarding individual rights. Violations of these guidelines could lead to legal actions
against police officers and magistrates.