Bibek Chaudhuri, J. – Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

2. It will be profitable to state the background of the instant revision, at the outset before dealing with the impugned order to come a decision, as to whether the impugned order is illegal, inoperative and inefficient.

3. On the basis of a Police report a case under Section 498A/341/323/504/34 of the I.P.C. read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner prayed for anticipatory bail before this Court. A Coordinate Bench in Cr. Misc. No. 24900 of 2017, disposed of the said application for anticipatory bail vide order dated 4th September, 2017 with the following direction: –

“In view of such, this application is disposed off with direction to petitioner to surrender before the Court below i.e. Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate/concerned court, Hilsa, DistrictNalanda within a period of four weeks from today in connection with Ekangarsarai P.S. Case No. 11 of 2017, along with Affidavit that he will keep the wife with full dignity and care. In the event the Court below finds that petitioner is willing to keep his wife with full dignity and care, the court below will release the petitioner on provisional bail to its own satisfaction for a period of six months and will issue notice to informant (wife) and will monitor the relationship between the parties by calling both of them every month in the court and in the event the court below finds that good conjugal relationship have been restored between husband and wife and wife does not make any complain about the physical and mental torture committed by the petitioner during the period of her stay with him or court below finds that good conjugal relationship could not be restored on account of indifferent attitude of wife or the wife does not appear even after valid service of notice, the court below shall confirm the provisional bail of the petitioner after six months.”

4. By passing the impugned order on 2nd May, 2019, the learned learned S.D.J.M., Hilsa, Nalanda rejected the said provisional bail granted by this Court in favour of petitioner and he was directed to surrender before the Court of the learned Magistrate. Moreover, petitioner’s application under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. was rejected by the learned Magistrate in the same order dated 2nd May, 2019. Though, the order of provisional bail was granted by a Coordinate Bench on 4th September, 2017, the pre condition of granting provisional bail seemed to be an attempt of reconciliation of the dispute and mediation of a charge under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and other penal provisions. It is needless to say that in a criminal case, at an inter locutory, stage the parties cannot be directed to stay together, where there was allegation of mental and physical cruelty. The conditions for provisional bail, in my humble and respect opinion was not satisfactory. No such condition can be imposed, as a condition for anticipatory bail directing the accused to restore peaceful conjugal life with the defacto complainant.

5. Since, 2017, the law on this subject has undergone a sea change in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 [: 2014 (3) BLJ 108 (SC)], the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly held that in any offence where the punishment is prescribed up to seven years, the accused cannot be directly arrested by the Police. The accused will have to be served a notice under Section 41(A) of the I.P.C. by the Police. The Police will record the statement of the accused persons, then consider as to whether for the purpose of investigation, he is required to be arrested. Even then the Investigating Officer shall have to take permission of the Learned Magistrate, showing the special reasons for the arrest of the accused persons. The provision of Section 41(A) and the decision of Arnesh Kumar (supra) was passed in the light of an offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C