📘 Preparation for RJS, DJS, PCS (J) and Other Judicial Service Exams
⚖️ Section 41(1)(B) CrPC and Section 498A IPC
Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State Of Bihar [2014]
- The attitude to arrest first and then proceed with the rest is despicable.
- Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically.
- Directions given in this case shall not only apply to the cases u/s 498-A I.P.C. but also to all such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years.
Delhi Law Academy Jaipur presents below for aspirants of Rajasthan Judicial Service (RJS), DJS, PCS (J) and other Judicial Services throughout India a very important judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [2014].
Original language of the judgment has been maintained; it has not been disturbed or replaced.
🧾 Arnesh Kumar v. State Of Bihar [2014 SC]
JUDGMENT
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
In sum and substance, allegation levelled by the wife against the appellant is that demand of rupees eight lakhs, a maruti car, an air-conditioner, television set etc. was made by her mother-in-law and father-in-law and when this fact was brought to the appellant’s notice, he supported his mother and threatened to marry another woman. It has been alleged that she was driven out of the matrimonial home due to non- fulfilment of the demand of dowry.
Denying these allegations, the appellant preferred an application for anticipatory bail which was earlier rejected by the learned Sessions Judge and thereafter by the High Court.
There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498A of the IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498A is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.
Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and cast scars forever. Law makers know it so also the police. There is a battle between the law makers and the police and it seems that police has not learnt its lesson; the lesson implicit and embodied in the CrPC. The attitude to arrest first and then proceed with the rest is despicable.
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. 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.
These are conclusions which one may reach based on facts. 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.
In pith and core, the police office 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 satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. In fine, before arrest first the police officers should have reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or the more purposes envisaged by sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section 41 of CrPC.
Before a Magistrate authorises detention under Section 167 CrPC he has to be first satisfied that the arrest made is legal and in accordance with law and all the constitutional rights of the person arrested is satisfied. If the arrest effected by the police officer does not satisfy the requirements of Section 41 of the Code, Magistrate is duty bound not to authorise his further detention and release the accused.
In other words, when an accused is produced before the Magistrate, the police officer effecting the arrest is required to furnish to the Magistrate, the facts, reasons and its conclusions for arrest and the Magistrate in turn is to be satisfied that condition precedent for arrest under Section 41 CrPC has been satisfied and it is only thereafter that he will authorise the detention of an accused. The Magistrate before authorising detention will record its own satisfaction, may be in brief, but the said satisfaction must reflect from its order. It shall never be based upon the ipse dixit of the police officer, for example, in case the police officer considers the arrest necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence or for proper investigation of the case or for preventing an accused from tampering with evidence or making inducement etc., the police officer shall furnish to the Magistrate the facts, the reasons and materials on the basis of which the police officer had reached its conclusion. Those shall be perused by the Magistrate while authorising the detention and only after recording its satisfaction in writing that the Magistrate will authorise the detention of the accused.
In fine, when a suspect is arrested and produced before a Magistrate for authorising detention, the Magistrate has to address the question whether specific reasons have been recorded for arrest and if so, prima facie those reasons are relevant and secondly a reasonable conclusion could at all be reached by the police officer that one or the other conditions stated above are attracted. To this limited extent the Magistrate will make judicial scrutiny.
We would like to emphasise that the practice of mechanically reproducing in the case diary all or most of the reasons contained in Section 41 CrPC for effecting arrest be discouraged and discontinued.
Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically.
📜 Directions Issued by the Supreme Court
- All 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 CrPC.
- 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 authorising 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 authorise 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.
- 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.
- Authorising 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 I.P.C. but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years.
⭐ Delhi Law Academy – Jaipur
Your trusted source for Judiciary Preparation across India.
www.delhilawacademy.com
📚 Continue Your CrPC Preparation
Don’t stop here! Strengthen your knowledge of CrPC with our other fully solved tests:
📘 Free Study Material for Judiciary Aspirants!
Download our FREE study material prepared by Delhi Law Academy’s expert faculty.
💬 Frequently Asked Questions on Section 41(1)(B) CrPC & Section 498A IPC
Section 41(1)(B) CrPC aims to ensure that arrests are not made casually or mechanically. The Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [2014] emphasized that police officers must record valid reasons before arresting an accused, especially for offences punishable up to seven years of imprisonment.
The Court ruled that police should not automatically arrest under Section 498A IPC (cruelty by husband or relatives). Instead, they must follow the safeguards under Section 41 CrPC and justify the necessity of arrest with proper reasoning and documentation.
The Court issued seven major directions including: maintaining a checklist under Section 41(1)(b)(ii), furnishing reasons for arrest to the Magistrate, forwarding the decision not to arrest within two weeks, and holding both police and Magistrates accountable for violations.
The Magistrate must ensure that the arrest complies with Section 41 CrPC, verify that reasons for arrest are genuine and recorded in writing, and confirm that constitutional rights of the arrested person have not been violated.
The Court observed that Section 498A, originally meant to protect women, was often misused to harass husbands and their relatives. Routine arrests led to humiliation and abuse of legal process. Hence, the Court sought to curb mechanical arrests and detentions.
The Arnesh Kumar case is a landmark ruling on procedural fairness and limits on police power. Judicial service aspirants should understand its practical application to CrPC Sections 41 and 167, and its relevance in balancing personal liberty with law enforcement duties.
Contact us
📍 Delhi Law Academy – Jaipur Branch
6C, Tower 2, Coaching Hub, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur – 302033
📞 Phone:
+91 9911916552
+91 8447285606
✉️ Email:
contactus@delhilawacademy.com