ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ajai Lamba, Vijay Laxmi, JJ.
Ankush Agrawal And Anr. - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Pri. Secy. Home And Ors. - Respondent
Misc. Bench No. 3551 of 2017
Decided On : 15-02-2017
Arrest - Criminal Procedure - Section 41, Section 41-A of Cr.PC - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The petition seeks to quash an F.I.R./Case Crime under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at a police station in Lucknow. The State's counsel refers to the provisions of Section 41 and Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.
Finding of the Court:
The court considers the interpretation of the provisions of Section 41 and Section 41-A of Cr.PC as provided by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar's case and emphasizes the need to balance individual liberty and societal order while exercising the power of arrest. The court also issues directions to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrates do not authorize detention casually and mechanically.
Issues: Interpretation of provisions of Section 41 and Section 41-A of Cr.PC, balancing individual liberty and societal order, and the need to avoid unnecessary arrests.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision is influenced by the interpretation of the provisions of Section 41 and Section 41-A of Cr.PC as provided by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar's case, emphasizing the need to balance individual liberty and societal order while exercising the power of arrest.
Final Decision: The petition is disposed of as not pressed.
1. The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing F.I.R./Case Crime No.238 of 2014, under Sections 147, 452, 427, 323, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the State states that the offence(s) allegedly committed entail a sentence up to seven years. In such circumstances, the investigating officer shall ensure compliance of provisions of Section 41 and Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure as provided by Hon?ble Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 .
3. We have considered the stand of learned counsel for the State. In Arnesh Kumar?s case (supra), the following (relevant portion) has been held: -
?6. 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. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent and wise for a police officer that no arrest is made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness of the allegation. Despite this legal position, the Legislature did not find any improvement. Numbers of arrest have not decreased. Ultimately, the Parliament had to intervene and on the recommendation of the 177th Report of the Law Commission submitted in the year 2001, Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ?Cr.PC), in the present form came to be enacted. It is interesting to note that such a recommendation was made by the Law Commission in its 152nd and 154th Report submitted as back in the year 1994. The value of the proportionality permeates the amendment relating to arrest.
7. ---Hindi---
7.1 From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is 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 punishable as aforesaid. A Police officer before arrest, in such cases has to be further 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 to 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. These are the conclusions, which one may reach based on facts.
7.2 Law mandates the police officer to state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid, while making such arrest. Law further requires the police officers to record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest.
7.3 In pith and core, the police officer before arrest must put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required? What purpose it will serve? What object it will achieve? It is only after these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as enumerated above is satis
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.