SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW, CHENNAI

Arnesh Kumar V State Of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273

NAME : HARESHUKESHA S

REG.NO : HB19041

COURSE : B.COM L.L.B (Hons.)

YEAR : V

SECTION : “A”

SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

STUDENT’S SIGNATURE FACULTY’S SIGNATURE

1. NAME OF THE CASE : Arnesh Kumar V State Of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273

2. LAW OR LEGISLATURE INVOLVED:

1. Indian penal code, 1860
2. Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
3. Code of criminal procedure, 1973
4. Article 22 (2) of the constitution of india
, 1950

3. PROVISIONS:
section 498 A- of IPC - cruelty by husband
or relatives of husband.
Section 41 when police may arrest without
warrant
Section 41 A notice of appearance before
the police officer
Section 67 person arrested not to be
detained more than 24 hours
Section 167 procedure when investigation
cannot be completed in 24 hours
Article 22(2) The arrested individual
should be produced before a judicial
magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest.
4. CASES REFERRED:
1.Mohammed Zubair vs. State of NCT of
Delhi & Ors [Writ Petition (Criminal) No.
279 of 2022
 2. Joginder Kumar vs State of U.P. 1994
SCC (4) 260
3. Uday Mohanlal Acharya Vs State of
Maharashtra 2001(5) SCC 453
4. Hussainara Khatoon vs State of Bihar
1979 AIR 1369
5. D.K. Basu Versus State of West Bengal
(1997 (1) SCC 416)
6. Neelabati Bahera v. State of Orissa AIR
1993 SC 1960,
7. Prem Narayan v. Union Of India Habeas
Corpus No. – 27130 Of 2019
8. Khudiram v. State of West Bengal 1975
2 SCC 81
9. ShibbanLal v. State of Uttar Pradesh
1954 AIR 179
10. Shri Pawan Kharetilal Arora v. Shri
Ramrao Wagh & Others Criminal Writ
Petition No.545 of 2009

5. ISSUE DISCUSSED:

The following were the key issues presented in

this case:

a. Whether the appellant is eligible for

anticipatory bail?

b. Is it required for a police officer to arrest a

person on the basis of a complaint if that person
 is suspected of committing a cognizable offence?
If so, what standards should the investigating
agency follow while arresting the person?

c. What recourse is available if a woman abuses

section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

6. JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court by way of its judgement has granted provision bail to the
petitioner on certain grounds. In this landmark judgment the Court not only
granted bail, but also discussed and touched upon those aspects which were not
dealt earlier i.e. misuse of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The court
ended up with its judgment by giving 8 golden principles/ directions for arresting
person under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.While making the analysis
of this judgement I have divided the context into two parts i.e. the observation
context of the judgement where Supreme Court has given observation with regard
to misuse of Section 498-A and Arrest of person under those section. While the
mandatory direction part deals with the directions issued by the Supreme Court
with regard to arrest under the Section of 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

7. JURISPRUDENCE EVOLVED:

The 2014 Indian Supreme Court case, Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, addressed
arrest and bail provisions under Section 41 and Section 498A of the Penal Code.
The court emphasized the importance of protecting personal liberty and
preventing misuse of Section 498A, which deals with dowry-related offenses. The
case emphasized the need for compelling reasons for arrest, balancing accused
rights with domestic violence victims' rights. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar is a
significant Indian legal case that addresses arrest and bail under Section 41 of the
CrPC. The Supreme Court emphasized principles like presumption of innocence,
recording reasons for arrest, and ensuring arrests are justified based on credible
evidence, balancing law enforcement interests with individual liberties.

The Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar case is a significant Indian legal case that
provides guidelines to prevent misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code,
emphasizing thorough investigation and safeguards to protect accused rights and
prevent harassment.

INTRODUCTION:

Section 498-A was inserted to the Indian Penal Code in 1989 as part of the
Criminal law (Second Amendment) Act. The purpose of this section is to prevent
the husband or other family members from abusing his wife for dowry and to
punish them if they do so. However, the Court noted that there has been a
phenomenal surge in marriage conflicts in recent years. Section 498-A of IPC has
clearly been misused by disgruntled women because of its non-bailable and
cognizable nature. According to the “Crime in India 2012 statistics” issued by the
National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, 1,97,762 people were
arrested in India in 2012 for violating section 498-A of the IPC. The report also
stated that 3, 72,706 cases are awaiting trial, with approximately 3, 17,000 of
them expected to be acquitted. Based on the figures provided in the
aforementioned report, it is possible to conclude that majority of those arrested
will be released following the trial. However, the accused’s reputation as well as
that of his family would be permanently damaged by the protracted trial and
arrest, which cannot be repaired. Arnesh Kumar V. State of Bihar (2014) is a
crucial case in criminal law where the court established rules for making an arrest.
In this case, the wife filed a charge against her husband accusing him of
demanding dowry
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar AIR 2014 SC 2756

Case Name : Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bhihar

AIR 2014 SC 2756
Equivalent Citation : AIR 2014
Date of Judgement : 2nd July 2014

Court: The Supreme Court of India

Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1277 of 2014

Case Type: Special Leave Petition (criminal)
Appellant: Arnesh kumar

Respondent: State of Bihar

Bench: Chandrumauli kr. Prasadpinaki
Chandra Ghose
Referred: The Indian penal code, 1860 The
Dowry prohibition Act, 1961 the
constitution of india, 1950 the Code of
Criminal procedure, 1973

FACTS OF ARNESH KUMAR VS STATE OF BIHAR:

Arnesh Kumar, the one who initiated legal proceedings, is wed to Sweta Kiran.
The couple was married on July 1st, 2007. According to the woman, her father-
in-law and mother-in-law demanded a dowry of Rs. 8 lac, along with a Maruti
car, air conditioning, a television, and other items. She claims that after telling
Arnesh Kumar about it, he took his mother's side and even made a threat to get
married.

She further claims that because the dowry expectations were not fulfilled, she was
compelled to leave the married residence. Arnesh Kumar, the accused, refutes
these claims. He attempted to get anticipatory bail, which is a legal safeguard
against being arrested before a possible charge, but the Sessions Judge and the
High Court denied his plea. He filed a Special Leave plea as Arnesh Kumar v.
State of Bihar with the Supreme Court after his effort to obtain anticipatory
release was denied.

SUMMARY:

In the Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar case, the Indian Supreme Court issued
guidelines for arrests under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals
with domestic abuse. Arrests should be the exception rather than the rule, the
Court stressed, particularly in situations when the potential term is less than seven
years in prison. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the court provided police with
a nine-point checklist for making an arrest in addition to directives to adhere to
Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Magistrates were directed to weigh
the need of detention before granting it. The goal of the decision was to safeguard
people's rights without permitting judicial abuse.

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.

OBSERVATION CONTEXT:

a. The Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of grant of anticipatory bail
with regard to an offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code first of
all highlighted the misuse of Section 498-A and observed that:

i) Section 498-A was introduced with a prime object to combat the harassment
and cruelty of woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The offence
under Section 498-A is Cognizable and Non-Bailable which has made it a dubious
place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than a shield
by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his
relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases bed ridden
grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husband, their sister living abroad for
decades are arrested.

ii.The Supreme Court also referred to the Crime in India Statistics published by
National Crime Records Bureau by Ministry of Home Affairs. The data shows
that 1, 97,762 persons were arrested in the year 2012 for the offence under Section
498-A of the Indian Penal Code and out of which 47,951 were women which
depicts the mother and sister of the husband that are caught in the net of this
offence. The rate of filing charge sheet for the offence under section 498-A is
93.6% while the conviction rate is only 15% which may likely states that in
pending trial maximum cases would end up in acquittal.

b) The Supreme Court thereafter made observation with regard to arrest. Supreme
Court observed that:

i. Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and cast scars forever. Law makers
know it so also the police. There is a battle between the law makers and the police
and it seems that police has not learnt its lesson; the lesson implicit and embodied
in the code of criminal procedure. It has not come out of its colonial image despite
six decades of independence; it is largely considered as a tool of harassment,
oppression and surely not considered a friend of public.

ii.The need for caution in exercising drastic power of arrest has been emphasized
time and again by the courts but has not yielded the desired result. Power of 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 attitude to arrest first and then proceed with the rest is despicable.
It has become a handy tool to the police officer who lack sensitivity or act with
oblique motive.

CONTENTION:

Arguments from the Appelant Side:

• The petitioner argued against the complaints lodged by his wife for the
dowry demands.
• The petitioner also contended that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was misused by his wife in
order to accuse him and his family.
• He believed that he has been arrested on the accusation of committing a
non-bailable offence. Therefore, he moved to the Session Court and the
High Court for the anticipation bail where his bail was rejected.
• The petitioner then appealed to the Supreme Court through Special Leave
Petition as he was not satisfied with the decision of the Session Court and
the High Court.

Arguments from the Respondent Side:

• The respondent accused the petitioner and his family for demanding dowry.
• It was also reiterated that the petitioner not only demanded eight lakh
rupees, a Maruti Car, an Air Conditioner, etc. but also threatened to marry
another woman if the demands are not fulfilled.
• Furthermore, the respondent argued that she was thrown out of the
matrimonial home because of the non-fulfillment of the demands of the
dowry.
• It was also contented that the petitioner should not be granted anticipatory
bail as the case includes Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
which a cognizable and non-bailable offence.

JUDGEMENT

The landmark judgment on arrest in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. the State of
Bihar where the petitioner was arrested on the apprehension of committing a
cognizable offense under Section 498A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The petitioner, in this
case, denied all the complaints of dowry lodged by his wife and in turn
appealed for anticipatory bail which was rejected. Then the petitioner
approached the gate of the Supreme Court by the way of the Special Leave
Petition which was accepted by the Court. Furthermore, the Court laid down
the guidelines and rights of the accused before and after the arrest, The Court
recapitulates on the increasing matrimonial altercations. The Court said that
Section 498-A of the IPC was set in motion to protect women of India from
the evil of the dowry system. The fact that Section 498-A is a cognizable and
non-bailable offense has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions
that are used as weapons rather than shields by disgruntled wives. The wives
nowadays harass their husbands and their relatives by getting them arrested
under this provision. Therefore, the Court held that ‘No arrest can be made in
a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offense made
against a person. It would be prudent and wise for a police officer that no arrest
is made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as
to the genuineness of the allegation. It was also recorded in the case of M.C
Abraham v. State of Maharashtra, the honorable Supreme Court of India
reiterated that arrests must be made very cautiously and by following the
correct procedure. It is mandatory for the police to make such arrests and is
 able to justify the accused is likely to commit the further offense, can alter the
evidence, etc.

The court further ordered the police to follow some guidelines while arresting
a person for cognizable offenses

The Court concluded its decision on the case by ordering these directions to
be followed not only to the cases related to Section 498A of IPC and Section
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 but also to the cases where the offense
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.

RELEVANT CASES:

D.K. Basu Versus State of West Bengal (1997 (1) SCC 416)

The Apex Court further laid down the following guidelines and said that arrest
and detention will be subject to the guidelines. The violation of these guidelines
would attract not only the departmental action but also the contempt of court
proceedings in a High Court having the jurisdiction over the matter. The
guidelines are as follows:

1) The police officer who arrests and handles the interrogation of the arrestee
must wear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their
designations. The details of all such police personnel who handle interrogation
must be recorded in a register.

2) The police officer carrying out the arrest must prepare a memo of arrest at the
time of arrest and it shall be attested by at least one witness who may be either a
member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from
where the arrest is made. It shall also be countersigned by the arrested person and
shall contain the time and date of arrest.
3) A person who has been arrested and is being held in custody in a police station
or interrogation centre or other lock-up shall be entitled to have one friend or
relative or other person known to him or having an interest in his welfare be
informed, as soon as possible, about his arrest and detention in a particular place,
unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a
relative of the arrestee.

4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified
by the police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the
district or town through the Legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police
station of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after
the arrest.

5) The person arrested must be made aware of his right to have someone informed
of his arrest or detention as soon he is put under arrest or is detained.

6) An entry must be made in the case diary at the place of detention regarding the
arrest which shall also disclose the name of his next friend who has been informed
of the arrest and the names and details of the police officials in whose custody the
arrestee is.

7) On request, the arrestee should be also examined at the time of his arrest and
any major and minor injuries, if any present on his/her body, must be recorded at
that time. The “Inspection Memo” must be signed both by the arrestee and the
police officer and a copy must be given to the arrestee.

8) The arrestee should be subjected to a medical examination by a trained doctor

every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of
approved doctors appointed by the Director, Health Services of the concerned
State or Union Territory. Director, Health Services should prepare such a penal
for all Tehsils and Districts as well.
9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above,
should be sent to the Magistrate for his record.

10) The arrestee may be allowed to meet his attorney during interrogation,
although not throughout the interrogation.

11) A police control room should be provided at all district and state headquarters,
where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee
shall be communicated by the officer who was in charge of the arrest, within 12
hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be displayed
on a visible notice board.

An alternate argument has been presented by the petitioners in Social Action

Forum v. the Union of India which has basically taken off the shackles on the
police’s arrest powers on dowry matters and given them wide discretion v . The
legislative intent behind the dowry provision in Cr.P.C is apparently being diluted
if powers of the police remain limited and under strict supervision and cases such
as the Dr Rini Johar judgment has made the police hesitant to entertain such FIRs.
The author believes that this is one of the simplest ways to harass under the
protection of the laws also adding the aspect of police corruption and oppression
to the mix.

The police force has not learnt a thing in the past 140 years and seems to maintain
its identity of being a brash and spoilt unit that seems to exploit their extensive
rights over the citizens of this Republic for their own personal gain and in
complete contrast to the law. The justice system seems to be ignorant of this issue
while being aware of it through the various crime statistics presented time and
again. Physical freedom of an individual is an unparalleled right which doesn’t
seem to mean anything to these parties which displays a general lack of social
conscience and leads to a further trust deficit in the justice system which can lead
to further issues such as non-reporting of crimes and the gradual extinction of
good Samaritans. Therefore, a massive overhaul in the education provided to the
police force is needed, justice system needs a sense of realization of this issue and
the introduction of a systematic system to maintain accountability is required as
soon as possible to retain the last remaining drops of trust and eventually come
on par with the less corrupt forces around the world.

Joginder Kumar vs State of U.P. 1994 SCC (4) 260

The illegal or Unlawful Detention of Petitioner about 5 days puts a very bad
impact on Societies. The Court feels that the matters must be enquired. As a result,
it orders the learned District Judge in Ghaziabad to conduct a thorough
investigation and submit his report no later than four weeks after receiving this
order. The Courts ordered in favour of Petitioner and ordered immediate release
of Petitioner. To stop the abuse of police authority, restrictions on the right to
make arrests should be put in place. It would be preferable to require through
departmental instructions that a police officer conducting an arrest also record the
circumstances of the arrest in the case diary, thus demonstrating his adherence to
the predetermined standards.

CONCLUSION

Everything has both positive and negative aspects. The purpose of section 498-A
of the IPC is to abolish the harsh practice of dowry from Indian society and punish
those who engage in it. However, many women have taken advantage of the gaps
in this clause to harass their spouse and his family members. In the Arnesh Kumar
vs. State of Bihar & Anr., case, the Supreme Court rendered a historic decision to
stop the abuse of anti-dowry laws. The judgement emphasized the importance of
striking a balance between individual liberty and society order while exercising
arrest power. While arresting someone, police personnel must exercise caution
because the arrest limits freedom, provides humiliation, and leaves permanent
scars. Additionally, it is urgently necessary to make police officers aware of the
Arnesh Kumar Guidelines and to take action against anyone who disregards the
Supreme Court’s ruling in this case.