The court emphasized the necessity for police to justify arrests and for judicial satisfaction before authorizing detention, following established guidelines.

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No.266 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. & Section 12 of Passport Act , Police Station- Uruwa Bazar, District Gorakhpur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Allegation against the applicant is that he in place of his earlier passport renewed, got new passport using different title. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant would cooperate in the investigation.

4. Considered the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant is, hereby, refused.

5. However, in view of judgment passed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar , (2014) 8 SCC 273 , wherein law has been laid down for arresting a person, which are being reproduced hereinbelow:-

"Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction:

All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Cr.P.C.;

All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);

The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;

The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention;

The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also 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."

6. In the recent judgment in the case of MD. Asfak Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand and another passed in Criminal Appeal No. (S) 2207 of 2023 decided on 31.07.2023, the Apex Court has reiterated the guidelines given in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).

7. Taking into account the totality of the fact and circumstances of the case and the in the light of the ratio laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and reiterated in the case of MD. Asfak Alam (supra), the freedom of the applicant is protected, provided if the I.O. of the case gives notice