In this article, we will discuss the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Arnesh kumar vs State of Bihar. What is the supreme court observation? The Supreme Court has granted interim bail to the accused Faruqui who was arrested along with other accused on 1st January in Madhya Pradesh. The for charges had levelled outraging spiritual feelings which comes under section 295 A of the IPC.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court bench of Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman and B R Gavai said that Faruqui’s attorney had observed that the allegations within the FIR are vague and also the procedure set down within the 2014 judgment has not been followed before arresting Faruqui. The Supreme Court then stayed the Judgement of the high court and directed the accused to be released on interim bail.
What Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar judgment says?
In 2014, the Supreme Court had heard a petition in a dowry harassment case by a person seeking pre-arrest bail apprehending arrest following an allegation by his spouse. The court noted that there had been a rise in matrimonial disputes in recent years, together with pendency before courts. It additionally dealt with a larger issue of arrest noting that it brings ‘humiliation, curtails freedom and casts scars forever.
“…the power of arrest which is given to police officer of arrest is one of the moneymaking sources of police corruption. The perspective to arrest 1st then proceed with the remainder is despicable. it’s become a handy tool to the law enforcement officials who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motive,” the court had said.
It further said that cops must be ready to justify the reasons for arresting someone and because as a result of an offence is registered, it mustn’t be followed by an arrest.
In Arnesh kumar vs State of Bihar, the court said that to ensure that cops don’t arrest suspect unnecessarily and magistrates don’t authorise the detention casually and mechanically, specific directions are to be followed.
These directions included directions to cops to not mechanically arrest once a case is registered under offences where the most penalty is seven years or less however to be satisfied 1st with the necessity to arrest under Section forty-one CrPC.
What is Section forty-one (41) of The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)?
The section offers the police the power to arrest someone without a warrant under specific conditions. In 2001, the 177th report of the Law Commission noted that the number of arrests for bailable offences were increasing and steered additions to section forty-one to make sure that arrests do not happen routinely on a mere allegation.
Similar recommendations on arrests were additionally created by 2 previous law commissions also as in the case, Joginder Kumar vs State of UP in 1994.
The recommendations of the 2001 Law Commission enacted by Parliament for offences that carry the most punishment of seven years or less, require an officer to give notice to an individual booked or suspected of having committed the offence.
The person would be directed to appear before the officer and having complied with the notice to look, she shall not be arrested. If the officer believes that arrest is needed, reasons for it are needed to be recorded in writing. And the magistrate is required to authorise the detention only if the conditions in the section are complied with.
In the Arnesh Kumar judgment, The Supreme Court has reiterated that these conditions as a “checklist” to be provided to all law enforcement officials.
It additionally said that if reasons for arrest and authorising detention aren’t recorded, the officer and also the judicial magistrate shall be to blame for departmental action. In the Faruqui case, his counsel has alleged before the Supreme Court submitted that these “safeguards” weren’t followed before his arrest.
Difference between interim bail and regular bail?
In the CrPc, sections 436 to 450 give procedures for grant of bail in criminal cases the power to a court to release an accused on bail, grant of bail to accused in non-bailable offences, pre-arrest bail, procedures for bail including accused personal bonds, surety bond.
Interim bails together with granted pending the disposal of the main bail application which can require a longer time to determine.
The 2009 Supreme Court judgment in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs the State of UP stated that in applicable cases, “interim bail ought to be granted pending disposal of the final bail application since arrest and detention of someone will cause irreparable injury to a person’s repute”. Here is the link of Arnesh Kumar vs state of bihar judgement.