ARNESH KUMAR versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
Headnote
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr. [2014] 8 S.C.R. 128 — Crl. Appeal No. 1277 of 2014 — Decided July 2, 2014 — Chandramauli Kr. Prasad and Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 — ss. 41, 41-A, 57, 167 — CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 — Art. 22 — IPC, s. 498-A — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, s. 4 — Arrest without warrant — Offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years — Mandatory conditions — Held: A police officer cannot arrest a person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less or extend up to seven years merely on being satisfied that the person committed the offence; arrest is permissible only if one or more of the additional conditions in cls. (a) to (e) of s. 41(1) CrPC are satisfied and reasons are recorded in writing. Where arrest is not required under s. 41(1), s. 41-A obliges the officer to issue a notice of appearance; arrest thereafter only on non-compliance or recorded reasons. Before authorising detention under s. 167, a Magistrate must independently satisfy himself that the arrest complies with s. 41 and record that satisfaction — mechanical or cavalier authorisation is impermissible. Directions issued to police officers and Magistrates applicable to all offences in the seven-year category, not merely s. 498-A cases. Anticipatory bail — provisional bail made absolute.
Issue
1. Whether a police officer may arrest a person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment up to seven years without recording satisfaction as to the necessity conditions prescribed in s. 41(1)(b)(ii) cls. (a)–(e) CrPC. 2. Whether a Magistrate may mechanically authorise police remand under s. 167 CrPC without independently scrutinising the legality of the arrest. 3. Whether the anticipatory bail declined by the High Court should be granted in a case under s. 498-A IPC and s. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Facts
The appellant-husband apprehended arrest in a case under s. 498-A IPC and s. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (maximum sentences three years and two years respectively), based on his wife's allegations of dowry demands and expulsion from the matrimonial home. His applications for anticipatory bail were rejected by the Sessions Judge and by the High Court of Patna (order dated 08.10.2013). On SLP, the Supreme Court by order dated 31.10.2013 granted provisional bail; the main appeal was then heard and decided.
Holding
1. Section 41 CrPC is a mandatory checklist, not a formality: for offences carrying up to seven years, arrest requires (i) reasonable complaint/credible information/reasonable suspicion of a cognizable offence and (ii) the police officer's recorded satisfaction that arrest is necessary for at least one of the purposes in cls. (a)–(e) of s. 41(1). Mere cognizability and non-bailability do not justify arrest. The officer must also record reasons in writing for not arresting. 2. Section 41-A notice must be issued wherever arrest is not required under s. 41(1); the accused who complies shall not be arrested unless fresh recorded reasons under s. 41 justify it. 3. A Magistrate's power to authorise detention under s. 167 is a solemn judicial function touching liberty under Art. 22; the Magistrate must examine the facts, reasons and conclusions furnished by the arresting officer, record independent satisfaction that the s. 41 conditions are met, and refuse remand if they are not — ipse dixit of the police officer is insufficient. 4. Directions to the foregoing effect are issued and shall apply to all offences in the seven-year category. 5. Provisional bail made absolute.
Disposition
allowed