| Citation | (2014) 8 SCC 273 |
| Date | 2nd July 2014 |
| Plaintiff/petitioner/appellant | Arnesh Kumar |
| Defendant/Respondent | State of Bihar |
| Name of Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Judges | Chandramauli K.R. Prasad and Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ |
INTRODUCTION
The Principle of “innocent until proven guilty” remains a fundamental principle internationally recognize to safeguard the right of citizens. Another fundamental right of a citizen is the right to liberty which constitutionally operate to nip the increasing indiscriminate arrest and thus guarding especially against arbitrariness of law enforcement agents.
Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar is a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court, which states that arrest should not be common, especially when the offence is non-bailable. It is the duty of the police to follow proper directions that are issued by the Supreme Court and follow proper procedure and not arrest anyone merely upon an allegation as it not only impact the rights of the individual but also their reputation. This is important as it creates a balance between the right of an individual and societal interest and social order.
In this landmark case, the Supreme Court adjudged upon the powers of the police to arrest any person without a warrant against a complaint under section 498-A of the IPC. The case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar addressed essentially the police power of arrest given the gravity of the offence relatively to avoid the misuse of power thereby occasioning injustice.
FACT OF THE CASE
In Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, the petitioner, was accused under Section 498A of the IPC for subjecting his wife to cruelty. The wife filed a complaint against him and his family members, alleging that they subjected her to cruelty and harassment for dowry, a common issue covered by Section 498A.
Arnesh Kumar (the petitioner) and Shweta Kiran (the respondent) got married on 1st July 2007. Shweta alleged her mother-in-law and father-in-law, of dowry of a Maruti car, an AC, a television set, Rs 8 lac cash, and other things, after which Arnesh Kumar was arrested under the provision of Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. She also stated when she told of it her husband, Arnesh, he supported his family and threatened her to marry another woman if the demand wasn’t fulfilled. She also stated that when the demand for dowry was not fulfilled, she was forced to leave the house. On the above, the police arrested Arnesh Kumar based on the complaint made by the wife.
Arnesh Kumar contended that his arrest was arbitrary, and he was not afforded any opportunity to explain or defend himself before being arrested. He argued that there was no proper inquiry or investigation before the police decided to arrest him.
The accused, Arnesh denied all the allegations made by the respondent (his wife). He applied for anticipatory bail which was earlier rejected by the Session Court and then the High Court. As his attempt to secure the anticipatory bail failed, he by way of Special Leave Petition appealed to the Supreme Court as Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
- Whether anticipatory bail ought to have been given to the appellant or not?
- Whether the police can arrest on mere the police can arrest an accused under section 498A IPC without sufficient grounds?
- Whether the guidelines to curb indiscriminate arrest were necessary or not?
JUDGEMENT
The court in its holding stated that there is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. Arrest bring, 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 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 because the offence is non -bailable and cognizable and therefore, lawful for the police officers to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing, the justification for the exercise of it is quite another. Apart from power to arrest, the police officers must be able to justify the reasons thereof. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person.
Section 41 makes it evident that a person accused of offence punishable with imprisonment for 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. Apart from this, the police officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or the more purposes envisaged by sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of s. 41 of Cr.PC. Police officer before arrest, in such cases has to be satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise ~o a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the police officer; or-unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured.
Law mandates the police officer to state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a conclusion while ·making such arrest. Law further requires the police officers to record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest.
REASONING
The Supreme Court of India has as a guiding principles in deciding the case, the need to safeguard the right of individual against state machinery particularly the right to liberty, which include the right from unlawful of arrest within the bound of the law and the need to preserve the institution of marriage as divorce is becoming rampant. This informed the court decision making when it stated that, 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 CPC. 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. 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. Power to 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 officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motive.
Law Commissions, Police Commissions and this Court in a large number of judgments emphasized the need to maintain a balance between individual liberty and societal order while exercising the power of arrest. Police officers make arrest as they believe that they possess the power to do so. As the arrest curtails freedom, brings humiliation and casts scars forever, we feel differently. We believe that no arrest should be made only because the offence is non-bailable and cognizable and therefore, lawful for the police officers to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing, the justification, for the exercise of it is quite another. Apart from power to arrest, the police officers must be able to justify the reasons
:thereof.
CONCLUSION
This landmark judgment of the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar headed by the bench of Justice Prasad and Justice Ghose has carved out the issue regarding the misuse of section 498A of IPC where the court gave directions to the state government and police on how to deal with arrest when a complaint is registered under section 498A of the IPC and also granted bail to the accused for whose arrest the guidelines were not followed.
The Supreme Court discussed the core issue of criminal jurisprudence and enforcement agencies’ power of arrest. The Arnesh Kumar Guidelines issued by the Supreme Court made it easy to determine the conditions or necessity required for arresting any individual upon mere complaints or allegations without any reasonable evidence.
The Indian Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) tackled the pressing issue of arbitrary arrests under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The court was alarmed by the skyrocketing number of matrimonial disputes and the blatant misuse of this provision, which was originally designed to safeguard women from harassment.
Shockingly, the court discovered that disgruntled wives were exploiting this law to torment their husbands and in-laws, with numerous cases resulting in the arrest of elderly grandparents and relatives living abroad. Citing disturbing statistics from the National Crime Records Bureau, the court revealed that a staggering 200,000 people were arrested under Section 498A in 2012, accounting for about a whopping 6.5% of all arrests.
To combat this issue, the court established crucial guidelines to prevent arbitrary arrests. These guidelines mandated police officers to prepare a comprehensive checklist outlining the reasons for arrest and required magistrates to scrutinize the report and verify its legitimacy before permitting prolonged detention.
Ultimately, the court’s decision was guided by the fundamental principle of protecting the rights of the accused while ensuring that the law is not exploited to harass innocent individuals. The guidelines set forth in this case have since been upheld in numerous subsequent judgments, significantly curbing the misuse of Section 498A.
Despite, factional criticism that attended the case coupled with the report of non absolute implementation of the court’s guidelines, it remains a good law as the object of the judgement remains to achieve the multi-layer effect of protecting the right of individual, from unlawful arrest, ensuring the law is not used or misused by the police or public governmental agency to occasion abuse or injustice and also preserving the institution of marriage from deteriorating.
REFERENCE
Supreme Court of India judgement
This article is written by Akogwu Agada Joshua from University of Nigeria Nsukka; an intern of Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.
‘Social Media Head’ and ‘Case Analyst’ of Legal Vidhiya.