Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar is an important case law which was really important to know to every citizen of India that’s reveal the truth behind the bar
Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar (summary)–
There are various of attempt was made for the protection of women in various international conference and since Parliament of India also has passed various enactments in order to protect the rights of women and to eliminate cruelty/biasness against women in all forms in our society. Some of the important legislation are Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, The Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act 1987, Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act 1986, Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, The National Commission for Women Act 1990, Immoral Traffic Prevention Act 1956, Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013 and Criminal Amendment Act 2013 and 2018.
Arnesh Kumar V State Of Bihar (2014) 8 Scc 273
Bench: Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Introduction–
by Criminal Law 2nd Amendment Act, Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was added which states, Husband or relatives of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty or harassment- Whoever being the husband or relative of husband of a woman, subject such women to cruelty or harassment shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
The essential ingredient from Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are:
(a)Woman must be married, (b)Woman is subjected to cruelty or harassment, (c)Such cruelty and harassment must have been inflicted either by Husband or relatives of husband.
IPC Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code has been added for defending women right and protect woman from cruelty.
But in the recent times it was found from the several statics given the National Crime Bureau reports, Section 498-A has been subjected to the episode of misuse of power against husband on the part of woman and there is a proper need to check the tendency of women to rope in all family members related to the crime of demanding dowry.
Facts- Arnesh kumar vs state of Bihar
The marriage was solemnized between the Petitioner hereinafter referred as (Arnesh Kumar) and Respondent No.2 hereinafter referred as (Sweta Kiran) on dated 1st July 2007. Arnesh Kumar was taken into custody under the provision of Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 after his wife Sweta Kiran stated that the petitioner has requested/demanded dowry from her.
The said Respondent No.2 i.e. Sweta Kiran alleged before the court and put allegations that the family of the petitioner has made a demand of Rupees 8 Lakhs, an Air-conditioner, a Maruti Car, a television Set etc. When Sweta Kiran told the fact in the petitioner’s (Arnesh Kumar) notice he supported his family member and threatened her that if the demand was not fulfilled he will get marry another woman.
Denying all the allegations against the petitioner made by the respondent, Petitioner applied for the anticipatory bail which was rejected by Court of Session earlier and thereafter by the High Court. The aggrieved party from the order rejecting the anticipatory bail, Petitioner by way of Special Leave Petition appealed to the Supreme Court of India.
Issues
what are the right available against misuse of 498A IPC ?
whether the anticipatory bail is granted or not
right of an accused person before and after arrest ?
While making the analysis of the judgement of the case (Arnesh Kumar V State Of Bihar) I have categorized the context into various parts
i.e.
(a) the observation context of the judgement where Supreme Court has given observation with regard to misuse of Section 498-A and (b) Arrest of person under those section. (c) While the mandatory direction part which deals with the directions issued by the Supreme Court with regard to arrest under the Section of 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Observation– was made in Arnesh kumar vs State of Bihar
while dealing with the issue of grant of anticipatory bail with regard to an offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code The Supreme Court first of all highlighted the misuse of Section 498-A and observed that:
Section 498-A was introduced with a main object to combat the harassment and cruelty of woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The offence under Section 498-A is Cognizable and Non-Bailable that are used as weapons rather than a shield from the Husband/relatives by disgruntled wives. It became so simple to harass and to get the husband and his relatives detent under this provision. In a large number of cases bed ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husband along with their sister living abroad for almost decades are getting arrested.
The Supreme Court Of India also referred to the Crime in India Statistics published by National Crime Records Bureau by Ministry of Home Affairs, as per this data stated that 197762 persons were arrested in the year 2012 for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and out of which 47,951 were women which depicts that the mother and sister of the husband that are caught in the plan of this offence. The rate of registering charge sheet for the offence under section 498-A is 93.6% while the conviction rate is only 15% which may likely states that maximum cases, end up in acquittal in the pending trial.
The Supreme Court thereafter made observation with regard to arrest. Supreme Court observed that:
Detention cast humiliation, curtails freedom and also scars forever. There is a battle between the police and the law makers and it seems that police has not learnt its lesson; the lesson implicit and embodied in the CrPC-1973. It has not come out of its colonial image in spite of six decades of independence; it is largely manipulated as a tool of harassment, oppression and surely not considered a friend of public.
Mandatory Directions
as in para number 13 of the judgment, The Supreme Court of India in order to ensure that police officer do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and magistrate do not authorize detention, the Court has prescribed the following directions:
- All the State Government should instruct properly to its police officers not to automatically arrest a person when an offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is registered. The necessity of arrest arises when the case falls under the parameter of section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(CrPC) 1973.
- All police officers must be provided with the check list containing specified clauses under Section 41 (1) (b) (ii).
- The police officer while producing accused before the magistrate for further detention, shall forward the check list duly filed and furnished with the reason and material necessitated the arrest
- The magistrate should keep in mind, while authorizing the order of further detention shall rely upon the report furnished by the police officer and only after recording the reason duly furnished on Police report. after satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize further detention order.
- The decision for not arresting an accused be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of institution of the case with a copy of Magistrate which may extended by the Superintendent of police(SP) of the district for the reason to be recorded in writing.
- Notice of Appearance in terms of Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure be served upon the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of case which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police after recording the reason in writing.
- if in any scenario, get failure to comply with the directions mentioned above shall rendered the police officer liable to be punished for contempt of court before High Court having jurisdiction.
- Authorizing detention of an accused by the Judicial Magistrate without recording the reason, the concerned Judicial Magistrate shall be liable for Departmental Proceedings by the High Court.
Judgment– Arnesh kumar vs State of Bihar
The Supreme Court has made clear decision and has granted provision bail to the petitioner on certain grounds. In this landmark case (Arnesh Kumar V State Of Bihar)the judgment of the Hon’ble Court not only granted bail, but also discussed and touched upon those facts and aspects which were not dealt earlier i.e. misuse of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The court ended up with its judgment by prescribing 8 golden principles/ directions for arresting person under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Conclusion–
The judgement of Arnesh Kumar V State Of Bihar case, Supreme Court headed by the bench of hon’ble Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad and Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose has beautifully carved out the issue of misuse of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code where the court not only granted bail but also prescribe the directions to the state government and police officers how to dealt with the detention in case of FIR is lodged under section 498A OF IPC 1860.
Thus the core issue of criminal jurisprudence and enforcement agencies power of arrest has been discussed by the Supreme Court in the light of Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The directions issued by the Supreme Court in the ruling reprieve the casual approach of the authorities in making arrest which earlier was based upon the mere allegations or insignificant claims of commission of offence.
MORE
Lalita Kumari vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2014
Arnesh Kumar vs state of Bihar- this is common and still government is working on the issue of criminal cruelty in a bar
