ARNESH KUMAR V/S STATE OF BIHAR & ORS (2014)

I. Introduction:
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, is contemplate to be one of landmark discernment of Apex court in the subject area of criminal law. This judgement furnish supervision to the executive body to operate in the accordance with, while fabricating the manoeuvre the competency of arrest in cognizable and non bailable offence which come beneath the ambit of article 21 which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty to all people in India and serve as a protection of the rights of the accused and symbolize the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”, Arnesh Kumar verdict furthermore not only analyze the offence which done in exceptional matter rather it also enunciating its view point where transgression is punishable with imprisonment for, term which may be substantially below seven year or which may be amplified to seven year whether with or without fine. Since, this authoritative determination propagate the extent of discretionary power of section 41A of CrPc where police incumbentupon to adhere to the proper set of protocol concurrent with the execution of the arrest. Arnesh Kumar discernment residing as a landmark precedent among the dowery stipulation which modify laymen perspective by altering our frame of intellect and make persuade to shove section 498A and 41A in the course of action that ensure to incarcerate section 498A and 41A, and confine them by balustrade around the legroom of divergent dubious, whose fortification is engrave with the defensible ambiguous which is incorporation of“question of law” whether the decision of high court to contradict the anticipatory bail was correct or not? or whether are any remedies available to the person if section 48A of IPC misused by a women for her own ascendancy or whether the police officer can arrest on mere allegation commission of non – bailable, and cognizable offence made against a person?, it is a grave affront to society that astatutory safeguard, conceived to uphold the dignity and modesty of women subjected to physical cruelty on account of dowry, is now being perverted into and instrument of vengeance and an expedient mechanisms for procuring illicit or extraneous advantages so, mere and very purpose of presenting this case brief is to illuminate an issue that has long remained obscured within the social fabric – and issue that risks sinking into the oblivion like a stone falling into the depth of ocean hoping that through this case law, the endeavour is to ensure that the true intent of the statute is not eroded or distorted, but instead shaped into a resilient and enduring pillar – like seasoned wood that never decays and continues to stand firm and radiant even amidst the vastness of the sea.

Details of cases:
• Case name – Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
• Case – Appeal NO. 1277 of 2014
• Equivalent citations – AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 2756, 2014 AIR SCW 3930,
(3) SCC (CRI) 499
• Acts involved – code of criminal procedure (CrPC),1973, Indian Penal Code, 1860,
and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
• Important Provisions – Sections 41, 41A and 57 of CrPC, Section 498A of Indian
+Penal Code (IPC), Article 21 of the constitution, Article 22(2) of the constitution,
Section 4 of Dowey Prohibition Act of 1961.
Note: The corresponding Sections in BNSS for 41, 42A and 57 are CrPC are sections 35(1)
/ (2), 35(3) and 35(6) and section 58 respectively. The corresponding Section in BNS for
Section 498A of IPC is Section 85.
• Court – Supreme Court of India.
• Bench – Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Chandramauli K.R Prasad.
• Petitioner – Arnesh Kumar.
• Respondent – State of Bihar.
• Judgement date – 2 July, 2014
II. Background of case:
From the commencing of Section 498A which was promulgated in IPC(Indian penal code) by the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, in 1883 ( Now, Sec 85 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) hereafter adduced as authority to as BNS which operate as a defensive rampant for married women who are facing concomitant factors coincident with to solicitation of dowry and violence in contravention of their entitlement, although in the commencement of 2-3 year of implementation of this section it elucidate it’s edifying effect in the society by attenuating the enumeration of unlawful gratification but efflux of time indicate culpability that instead of accomplishing it’s envisaged aim for which it’s promulgate, it ripens into duplicitous tool for married women and her family as a medium to instrument for ventilating personal vendettas antithetical to the husband and other family member as a repercussions, the exculpatory shelter  itself operates as an apparatus of fraudulent means which can also scrutinize in the case of (Preeti Gupta & Anr vs. State of Jharkhand) where supreme court emphasized upon conducting thoroughly and panoramic exhaustive probe as aprecursor effectuating section 498A, Arnesh Kumar authoritative ruling jurisdictional function as a quintessential factor in the Indiajudicature and by virtue of which it extrapolated them contingency of section 498A and section 41A.

III. Facts of Cases:
• Arnesh Kumar (appellant), and Shwetha Kiran(respondent) join in wedlock in 1 July, 2007, where eventually after sometime they both start facing some matrimonial
disputes.

• Where Shwetha Kiran (respondent) claim that Arnesh Kumar (appellant) and her mother-in-law and father-in-law demanded a (Maruti car, A/C, TV set, and 8 lakh rupees
as dowry he also threatned to marry another women if the demands were not full filled, furthermore appellant (Arnesh Kumar) was charged under sec 498A of IPC (Now, Sec
85 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), and sec 4 of Dowry Act, 1961.
• Arnesh Kumar refuted all the allegations leveled by his wife and submitted his defense by stating that “Neither I nor my parents ever demanded dowery” after all this claims appellant Arnesh kumar sought to obtain an anticipatory bail under 438 CrPC (Now, sec 482 of BNSS which was rejected by the session court of Bihar and thereafter HighCourt of Patna.
• Challenging the rejection of his Anticipatory bail appellant approach to supreme court through Special Leave Petition (SLP).
• This case raised concerns about the misuse of power by police authority and married
woman under sec 41 CrPC.
IV. Issues raised:
• Can arrests under Section 498A IPC be made automatically?
• What are the safeguards to prevent misuse of power under Section 41 CrPC?
V. Judgement:
• The judgement if this case drawn up very important societal issue by guiding the judiciary and the police authority, while arresting the accused not only under sec 498A but also levelled the offence which is less than seven year and other Non – cognizable offences.
• Court observed that the purpose of sec 498A was to tackle the harassment of wife byher husband or his relatives but it seen as more of its malevolent intent because of its
cognizable and non – bailable nature.
• Court analyzie the Crime in India report of 2012, published by NCRB (National Crime Records Bureau), Ministry of home affairs, where report tells its own different story, report specified that, 1,97,762 persons were arrested under 498A which is 94% more than the 2011 statistics.
• Further, court pointed out that the rate filling charge sheets under sec 49A was 93.6%, however the convection rate is merely 15% and further report highlights that 3,72,706 case are pending under trail and nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal.
• The data revels that the misuse of sec 498A has led to egregious outcomes suggesting its harmful ramifications are more widespread than its protective benefits, court
 further observed that the police authority and magistrate are possess the right to arrest the mere classification of an offence as cognizable and non-bailable does not, ipso facto, grant law enforcement unfettered authority to apprehend an individual; such action must still be predicated upon reasonable grounds and the satisfaction of
statutory preconditions for arrest.
VI. Legal Principle:
• Court observed that the arrest should be exception, not a rule merely just because of its non – bailable nature, police authority and magistrate must ensure the safeguard and curb the misuse of sec 498A and which must justify in the eyes of law and court observed that sec 41 was necessary to curb indiscrimination while arrest.
• Apex court laid down golden guideline for arrest of the accused by the police in non – cognisable offence.
• Police cannot arrest merely on registration of FIR arrest can be made only if the conditions under sec 41 CrPC are fulfilled and when it is last resort.
• Magistrate’s scrutiny after the arrest, the magistrate will not blindly approve the remand the magistrate must check the police report and be satisfied that the arrest is
justified.
• Notice of appearance should be place instead of arresting the accused, a notice of appearance will be served, giving him the opportunity to join the investigation.
• Checklist for police must ensure by police by preparing a written checklist specifying the reasons why the arrest is necessary this checklist must be shown to the magistrate.
• Accountability of Non – compliance, if the police do not follow these guide line, they will face departmental action and if magistrate grant remand without proper scrutiny,
they may face contempt proceedings.
• Application beyond IPC 498A, arnesh kumar guide line are not only limited to sec 498A IPC but are also applicable to all offence where the punishment is seven year or
less with fine and without it.

VII. Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi:
• This case curb misuse of arrest powers in matrimonial cases by asserting the guide line for arrest under 498A and order law enforcement bodies to force to abide by these
guide line to avoid departmental action not only sec 498A but this judgment highlights the paramount importance of the right to personal liberty under Article 21
and reinforces the fundamental principle that an individual is presumed innocent until their guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, it serves as a crucial
precedent for future cases.
• Yes, as a society we undeniably require legal tools and mechanisms to combat the menace of dowry demands, However, the true value of such provisions cannot be
justified when their adverse consequences overshadow their intended protective purpose. How can it be justified that an entire family is detained merely on the basis of unverified allegations? How does such an approach serve the ends of justice when the provision begins to operate not as a shield for the vulnerable but as a sword that
indiscriminately cuts down the rights of others?
• What happens to the right to personal liberty? Where does the fundamental principle—enshrined in our constitutional jurisprudence and reiterated in every law
book—that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, disappear in such scenarios? Is this not a direct infringement of fundamental rights? Why is it that only one case out of thousands surfaces, becomes the precedent, and then dictates future judicial applications? And There is an urgent need for a system that ensures a double-
layered scrutiny of allegations, accompanied by a strict timeline for the completion of such cases. One can only hope that these malafide practices, where legal provisionsare exploited for personal advantage, are curtailed at the earliest so that the statute may once again serve its true and noble purpose.”

Annexures:

• Annexure 1: Full Judgment of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/2982624/