Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar AIR 2014 SC 2756

Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar AIR 2014 SC 2756

Case Name:	Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar AIR 2014 SC 2756
Equivalent Citation:	AIR 2014 SC 2756
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:	Chandramauli Kr. PrasadPinaki Chandra Ghose
Referred:	The Indian Penal Code, 1860 The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961The Constitution of India, 1950The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

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. 

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Arnesh Kumar, the petitioner, is married to Sweta Kiran, respondent number 2. On July 1^st, 2007, they had their wedding ceremony.
2. The wife claims that her mother-in-law and father-in-law made a dowry demand of Rs. 8 lac, a Maruti car, an air-conditioner, a television set, and other items, and that when this was brought to the appellant’s attention, he supported his mother and threatened to marry another woman. 
3. Further, it is claimed that she was evicted from the matrimonial house since the dowry demand was not met. 
4. Denying these charges, the appellant filed an application for anticipatory bail, which was initially denied by the learned Sessions Judge and then by the High Court. 
5. Since his attempt to obtain anticipatory bail failed, he approached the Supreme Court with this Special Leave petition. 

ISSUES RAISED

The following were the key issues presented in this case:

• Whether the appellant is eligible for anticipatory bail?
• 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?
• What recourse is available if a woman abuses section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

LEGAL PROVISIONS

The following provisions are addressed in the matter:

1. Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
3. Sections 41, 41A, 57, 167, 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
4. Article 22 (2) of the Constitution of India, 1950

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court’s two-judge panel rendered a significant decision in the matter of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Anr., on July 2, 2014. The bench came to a majority decision and granted bail to the appellant with specific conditions. 

In response to Arnesh Kumar’s Special Leave Petition challenging his detention and the arrest of his family under this law, the Supreme Court issued certain instructions. The bench noted that the non-bailable and cognizable nature of section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 had made it a potent tool for irate wives, resulting in innocent individuals being detained without any proof. The Supreme Court stated that some women are misusing the anti-dowry legislation (section 498-A) to harass their husbands and in-laws. 

The Apex Court barred the police from making arrests only on the basis of a complaint. The Court ordered the police to apply section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which includes nine points that must be followed to determine the need for an arrest. The Court also stated that a magistrate must decide whether an arrested person needs to be held in further detention. 

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.  

REFERENCES

• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/2982624/
• https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-6196-arnesh-kumar-v-state-of-bihar-2014-8-scc-273-landmark-ruling-on-misuse-of-section-498-a-of-the-indian-penal-code.html#:~:text=Lawyers%20in%20India-,Arnesh%20Kumar%20V%20State%20Of%20Bihar%20(2014)%208%20Scc%20273,Of%20The%20Indian%20Penal%20Code&text=Parliament%20of%20India%20has%20passed,against%20women%20in%20all%20forms. 

written by Saheli Naha intern under legal vidhiya