Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.
ARNESH KUMAR – APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1277 OF 2014 (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.9127 of 2013)
Decided On : 02-07-2014
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1873 – Section 41 – Power to arrest – Arrest fast, bringing humiliation, curtailing freedom and casting scars forever – Power to arrest breeds arrogance and corruption – To arrest first and then proceed to investigate – Despicable – No arrest should be made only because the offence is non-bailable and cognizable and therefore, lawful for the police officers to do so – Provisions of section 41 are to be scrupulously observed – Directions issued – These directions apply not only to cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, but also to such cases where offence 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. (Para 4, 5, 6, 17, 18, 19, 20)
Facts of the case:
Allegation levelled by the wife against the appellant is that demand of Rupees eight lacs, a maruti car, an air-conditioner, television set etc. was made by her mother-in-law and father-in-law and when this fact was brought to the appellant's notice, he supported his mother and threatened to marry another woman. It has been alleged that she was driven out of the matrimonial home due to non- fulfilment of the demand of dowry. Denying these allegations, the appellant preferred an application for anticipatory bail which was earlier rejected by the learned Sessions Judge and thereafter by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
Attitude to arrest first and then proceed to investigate is despicable.
Result: Anticipatory bail granted.
The case involves a husband who was accused of demanding dowry and threatening his wife, leading to allegations of harassment under the relevant criminal laws. The wife alleged that the appellant, supported by his family, demanded a significant amount of money and goods, and when her complaints were made known, she was allegedly driven out of her matrimonial home. The appellant, in turn, denied these allegations and sought anticipatory bail, which was initially rejected by the lower courts.
The case's progression can be understood through several stages:
Filing of Allegations and Complaint: The wife filed allegations against the husband and his family, accusing them of dowry demands and harassment (!) .
Application for Anticipatory Bail: The accused husband applied for anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the Sessions Court and subsequently by the High Court, indicating the courts' initial stance on the matter (!) .
Legal and Judicial Considerations: The court examined the broader context of the law regarding arrests under the relevant criminal statutes, emphasizing that the attitude of arrest first and investigate later is problematic. The court highlighted the importance of the legal provisions governing arrest, especially in cases punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, and stressed that arrests should not be made routinely or without proper justification (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Legal Principles and Directions: The court underscored the necessity for police officers to adhere strictly to legal procedures before making arrests, including recording reasons and satisfying the conditions for arrest under the law. It also introduced directions to prevent unnecessary arrests, especially in cases under Section 498-A and similar offences, and emphasized that arrests should be based on reasonable suspicion and proper investigation (!) (!) (!) .
Order and Final Decision: The court ultimately granted anticipatory bail to the appellant, making the earlier provisional bail order absolute, and issued directions to ensure compliance with the principles of proper arrest procedures to prevent misuse of power and protect individual liberty (!) .
In summary, the case involved the investigation and legal scrutiny of allegations of dowry harassment, focusing on the procedures and principles governing arrests, and culminated in the grant of anticipatory bail with directions to uphold lawful arrest practices.
JUDGMENT
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The maximum sentence provided under Section 498-A IPC is imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and fine whereas the maximum sentence provided under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is two years and with fine.
2. Petitioner happens to be the husband of respondent no.2 Sweta Kiran. The marriage between them was solemnized on 1st July, 2007. His attempt to secure anticipatory bail has failed and hence he has knocked the door of this Court by way of this Special Leave Petition. Leave granted.
3. In sum and substance, allegation levelled by the wife against the appellant is that demand of Rupees eight lacs, a maruti car, an air-conditioner, television set etc. was made by her mother-in-law and father-in-law and when this fact was brought to the appellant's notice, he supported his mother and threatened to marry another woman. It has been alleged that she was driven out of the matrimonial home due to non- fulfilment of the demand of dowry. Denying these allegations, the appellant preferred an application for anticipatory bail which was earlier rejected by the learned Sessions Judge and thereafter by the High Court.
4. There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A of the IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than 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 husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested. "Crime in India 2012 Statistics" published by National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India during the year 2012 for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the crimes committed under Indian Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5% of total crimes committed under different sections of penal code, more than any other crimes excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section 498A, IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal.
5. 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 Cr.PC. 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.
6.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
