This article is written by Janani Parvathy J. It contains a detailed case analysis of Arnesh Kumar vs. the State of Bihar (2014). This article includes the facts, issues raised and the judgement. Additionally, this article highlights the landmark guidelines laid down by the Apex Court regarding the arrest of the accused and the further implications of this case. 

Introduction 

Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Arnesh Kumar case’) is a historic case in criminal law. Indiscriminate arrests and extended detention were prevalent throughout the country. Arrests even in petty offences, and offences punishable within seven years of imprisonment were being carried out. The police arbitrarily exercised its powers of arrest, resulting in a delay of justice, and overcrowding of prisons. Several fundamental rights of the accused were being violated. 

There were ubiquitous violations of the Right to life, movement, and freedom of the arrested. They were illegally detained based on mere suspicion. Therefore, understanding the grave situation, the Supreme Court, historically laid down guidelines to regulate arrests in the Arnesh Kumar case. This case laid down comprehensive rules to be followed by the police during arrest and by the magistrate while deciding upon the detention of the accused. It laid down the circumstances during when an accused could be arrested and also provided a thorough interpretation of Section 41 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC)- now, Section 35 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as BNSS).

Further, this case also deeply analyses the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 (Now, Section 85 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) (hereinafter referred to as BNS) or cruelty and laid down guidelines to prevent them. Additionally, the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was also briefly analysed in this case. Arnesh Kumar’s case is renowned for ensuring the protection of the incarcerated yet innocent accused. This case condones arbitrary arrests and lays down strict rules to be adhered to by the police. It emphasises on protection of the rights of the accused and the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. It further emphasised that the power of the police is limited and that the fundamental rights of a suspect or an accused need to be upheld unequivocally. This case is rich in its interpretation of Section 41 of CrPC and Section 498A of IPC and hence becomes an important precedent for defence counsels to look up to.

This article shall discuss in detail the facts, issues, and judgment and also provide a critical analysis of the case. 

Details of the case

• Case name – Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar
• Case no. – Criminal Appeal NO. 1277 of 2014
• Equivalent Citations – AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 2756, 2014 AIR SCW 3930, (3) SCC (CRI) 449
• Acts involved – Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC),1973, Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
• Important provisions – Section 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 Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961.

Note: The corresponding Sections in BNSS for 41, 41A and 57 of CrPC are Section 35(1)/(2), 35(3) to 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 – 2nd July, 2014

Background of the case

Prior to 2014, irrespective of the magnitude of the offence, punishment for the offence, and culpability of the accused, arrest was the consequence. Even individuals with petty offences were put behind bars. The Indian prisons are filled with persons who have not yet gone to trial, over 2/3rd of inmates are undertrials. The plight and magnitude of undertrials were accurately highlighted during the outbreak of Covid-19. The situation of the accused prior to 2014 was bleak. The situation that prevailed was akin to a police state where the police unnecessarily without competent jurisdiction or authority or evidence indiscriminately arrested the accused. This was a gross violation of the right to dignity and basic principles of natural justice. It also violated the fundamental principle of “innocent until proven guilty” of the Indian legal system. 

The provisions of CrPC were blatantly violated by the Executive. In the month of 1994, the first respite was given, the Supreme Court observed in Joginder Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1994) that indiscriminate arrests violated constitutional provisions. The Court laid down arrest guidelines to be strictly followed by the police. In the Jogider Kumar case, the Court observed that 60% of arrests at that time were unnecessary and unjustified. Further, in Siddharam Sarilingappa Mehtre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors (2010), the Supreme Court highlighted the menace of indiscriminate arrests. The court re-emphasised adherence to Section 41 of CrPC. Thereafter, in 2014 the same issue was analysed deeply. The prevalence of arbitrary and groundless arrests even after some precedents and guidelines, brought the need to analyse the question again and introduced more comprehensive and stricter guidelines to curb unnecessary arrests. This was extremely important to safeguard fundamental rights and provide proper Justice.

Facts of the case

• This case starts with an allegation of dowry harassment. The appellant is the husband of respondent no. 2 (Swetha Kiran), the wife. Their marriage was solemnised on 1st July 2007.
• The wife claimed that a  Maruti car, A/C, TV set, and 8 lakh rupees were amongst the items demanded by her mother-in-law and father-in-law. When the wife brought this to the notice of her husband, he threatened to marry another woman if the demands were not fulfilled. The wife further alleged that she was driven out of the house because she failed to provide the Dowry that was demanded. The appellant was charged under Section 498A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961.
• The appellant after coming to know the charges levied against him sought to obtain an anticipatory bail (Section 438 of CrPC, now, it is Section 482 of BNSS), which was refused by the Sessions Judge of Bihar and by the High Court of Patna.
• Challenging the rejection of his anticipatory bail, the appellant approached the Supreme Court through a criminal appeal.

Laws involved

Warrant 

A warrant is a legal document issued by the magistrate, judge, or some competent officer to the police, allowing them to arrest, or search an accused. Warrants can also be issued to demand the presence of the accused in the court. It is essential that the warrant be in writing, and possess the seal of the court and the sign of the magistrate. Provisions pertaining to warrants of arrest are mentioned under Sections 70–81 of the CrPC (Now, Sections 72 – 83 of the BNSS). 2(1)(z) of BNSS defines a warrant case as relating to a case punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term of more than 2 years.

Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Section 41 of the CrPC enlists the circumstances when the Police can arrest an accused without a warrant. This Section is one of the most comprehensive sections of CrPC. It contains 4 clauses and multiple sub-clauses. Section 41 is one of the most violated provisions, where ensuring adherence is difficult. Section 41 specifies that the police can arrest without a warrant in the following cases:

• The offence was grave or serious and specified a punishment of 7 years or more. For example, rape, murder, dacoity, hate crimes etc.
• Further, an accused found with possession of stolen goods can be arrested without arrest. 
• Further, in some instances, an accused of an offence of punishment up to 7 years or less can be arrested without a warrant.
• An accused of an offence punishable with less than seven years can be arrested provided that the police officer received credible information or complaint regarding the commission of the offence and reasonably believed that the accused committed the offence or that the arrest of that accused was necessary. 
• Further, an accused declared as a proclaimed offender by the State can be arrested without a warrant. Proclaimed offenders are defined under Section 82 of the CrPC (Section 84 of BNSS, 2023). The proclaimed offender is an accused who is reasonably believed to be absconding and against whom a proclamation is issued by the magistrate ordering him to be present before the court. 
• An individual who has deserted the army or is suspected of deserting the army.
• When a released convict breaches the rules he is obliged to follow. 
• An individual who obstructs the police officer from performing their duty or tries to escape from lawful custody.
• An individual against whom reasonable apprehension exists that he could have committed an offence outside India, and such an offence would be punishable under Indian laws if committed in India. The law relating to extradition shall be applicable and the individual shall be detained in India

The Section further states that in cases of non-cognizable offences, an arrest cannot be made without a warrant. Non-cognizable offences refer to offences that are less serious in nature. They are those offences where the police ought to obtain permission from the magistrate to investigate the cases.(Section 2(l) of CrPC or Section 2(1)(o) of BNSS,2023)

Further, under Section 41 an accused can be issued a notice to appear before the police officer if the case does not fall under the provisions of Section 41(1). The accused, if given the notice is duty-bound to appear before the police, failing to do the same could lead to the arrest of the accused without a warrant. However, if the accused appeared before the police officer as instructed then the accused cannot be arrested without a warrant except with the reasons mentioned. In the present case, the Supreme Court observed that Section 41 cannot be invoked to arrest the accused. Further, the Apex Court also laid down guidelines for arrest under Section 41 in this case.

Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Section 41A of CrPC specifies furnishing a notice to the accused to appear before the police. It enables the police to order the appearance of the accused if arrest is not necessary. Further, if there is a reasonable belief that the person has committed a cognizable offence, then a notice to appear before the police may be given. Section 41A(2) specifies that once a notice is given the accused is duty-bound to appear. Section 41A(3) enables the police to arrest the accused if he fails to comply with the notice. Additionally, sub-section 4 mentions that subject to orders passed by a competent court, the accused may even be arrested for the offence for which notice was given. 

In the present case, the court highlighted the misuse of Section 41A and ordered guidelines to restrict indiscriminate arrests under Section 41.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India

Article 21 talks about the ‘right to liberty and life’. Article 21 specifies that no person can be deprived of his liberty except through the provisions established by law. Liberty refers to freedom of speech, occupation, expression etc. The Apex Court and the High Courts in several judgments have expanded the scope of Article 21. Article 21 was broadened to include the right to dignity, the right to privacy, the right to a safe environment and the right to shelter. 

The Supreme Court has explained the facets of liberty through several judgments. In A.K Gopalan vs. State of Madras (1950), the court observed that liberty refers to liberty of the body, that is, freedom from arrest or detention. In the case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978), the court observed that Article 21 includes the right to dignity and life. In the case of Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the right to livelihood is an essential part of the right to liberty under Article 21. In the case of Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court observed that the right to privacy was a part of Article 21. It was held that individual privacy cannot be compromised except by the procedure established under law. 

In the present case, anticipatory bails were under consideration. The Apex Court observed that indiscriminate arrests and the detail of anticipatory bail led to a violation of Article 21 that is, of life and liberty under Article 21. 

Before delving into the issues involved and the judgement given by the Apex Court, in the Arnesh Kumar case, it is crucial to discuss the arguments put forth by the parties before the Hon’ble High Court of Patna and the brief of the judgement passed by the Hon’ble High Court.

Proceedings before the High Court of Patna

Arguments of the parties 

Petitioner 

• The petitioner submitted that he is a software engineer and denied all allegations of dowry demands put forth by the respondents. The Petitioner alleged that a prima facie case does not exist and that the allegations of torture or dowry demand have not been substantiated by the respondent at the Court. Further, it was submitted that no injury reports were presented to prove the claims of injury and that therefore, he should be given anticipatory bail. 

Respondent 

• It was alleged that the Husband had tortured the wife, stating that the wife faced dowry harassment and physical torture while staying with her husband in Hyderabad. Further, it was alleged that the husband was having an illicit relationship with another woman. Furthermore, it was stated that the wife was physically and mentally assaulted over the non-fulfilment of the dowry demand. 

Judgement by the Hon’ble High Court of Patna

Looking into the serious allegations levelled against the appellant-accused, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the accused, dismissing the above-mentioned averments made by the counsel for the appellant-accused. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of anticipatory bail, the appellant-accused preferred an appeal before the Apex Court. 

Now, let’s discuss the issues that were before the Apex Court, followed by the judgement of the High Court. 

Issues raised before the Supreme Court

• Whether anticipatory bail ought to have been given to the appellant or not?
• Whether indiscriminate arrests were prevalent or not?
• Whether guidelines to curb indiscriminate arrests were necessary or not? 

Judgement by the Supreme Court

Rationale behind the judgement 

The judgement of this case is very important for guiding police and the judiciary while arresting the accused. This case laid down guidelines which continue to be followed to date. This case has been relied upon by the Supreme and High Courts in several other judgments. 

Observations by the Apex Court

• The court observed a ‘phenomenal increase’ in the number of matrimonial disputes in the country. It further observed the sacred nature of marriages in the country. Commenting upon the purpose of Section 498A, the court observed it was introduced to tackle the harassment of the wife by her husband or his relatives. 
• However, although the purpose of Section 498A was good, the Section is becoming prone to misuse. The court observed that because Section 498A is a cognizable and non-bailable offence, the same has led to misuse of the provision as a shield for disgruntled wives. The simplest form to get back at the husband or harass him was to get him and his relatives arrested under this provision. 
• Highlighting the extent of misuse, the court observed that in several cases even bed-ridden grandmothers, grandfathers of the husband, and sister living abroad are arrested. This case came to appeal before the Supreme Court in 2014, therefore the Court analysed the Crime in India report of 2012, published by the National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs. The report specified that 1,97,762 persons were arrested under Section 498A, which is 9.4% more than the 2011 statistics. The court observed that this amounted to 6.5% of the total number of arrested individuals.
• Further, it was pointed out that the rate of filing charge sheets under Section 498A was as high as 93.6%. However, the conviction rate was merely 15%. Further, the report highlighted that 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on the current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal. This depicts the vulnerability of Section 498 A and its misuse. 

Effect of arrests

• The court observed that arrests bring with them several ill-effects. The court observed that arrests bring unhealed scars. Although both police and lawmakers are well aware of the ill effects of arrests, indiscriminate arrests often happen. The court reprimanded the police stating that despite 6 years of independence the police failed to shed its colonial nature. The court pointed out that police. The court observed that arrest was used as a tool for harassment. It re-emphasized that although CrPC mandates to cautiously exercise the power of arrests, neither the police nor the magistrate abides by it. Further,  the court observed that arrests had become a handy tool for police officers with ulterior motives or extremely insensitive.
• The court went on to explain the blatant violations of legal provisions by indiscriminate arrests by the police officers. 
• The court observed that law commission reports and court judgements have held that balance between the right to arrest, maintenance of law and order and protection of individual rights and liberty. 
• The court further observed that the police officers believe that they possess the right to arrest however the court observed to the contrary. The court held that merely because the offence is cognizable and non-bailable, arrests cannot be made. Reasonable justification for arrest needs to be specified. The court laid down that arrests cannot be made routinely because of a mere allegation of offence.
• The court pointed out that the legislature, even after these grave situations, has not introduced any changes. Further, based on the 177th Law Commission, the parliament intervened and passed section 41 of CrPC. Further, the court observed that Section 41 was necessary to curb indiscriminate arrests.

Observations by the Apex Court in relation to relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

• Interpreting Section 41, the Apex Court observed that a person arrested for an offence punishable with a sentence of less than seven years or seven years cannot be arrested by the police officer based on mere allegations. The Apex Court further observed that it has to be necessary that the police officer can arrest in the above situations only once they are satisfied that the arrest is necessary to prevent the commission of further offences, or tampering with evidence, or when the person arrested cannot be produced before the court. 
• The Apex Court observed that the law mandates the police officers to mention reasons why they have or have not arrested the accused. Therefore, the Apex Court held that police cannot indiscriminately arrest but can exercise only after prudently analysing whether it is necessary, helps fulfil the purpose, and analyse the weight of the evidence. In simple words, the police must be satisfied that the arrest is required under Sections 41 (a) to (e). 

Procedure to be followed for the detention of the accused

• The Apex Court held that an accused arrested without a warrant must be produced before the magistrate within 24 hours, and noncompliance would lead to violations of Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 of the CrPC (Section 58 of BNSS,2023)
• After the accused is arrested, he must be produced before the magistrate and the police officer must furnish details of the offence, and the reasons behind the arrest  However, an arrest cannot be made just because the police thought it was needed, the officer is required to submit relevant details before the magistrate the reasons as to why the arrest was needed and the same shall be perused by the magistrate to decide upon authorising the detention.
• Only if the reasons recorded by the police are relevant and conclusive to decide upon the necessity of arrest, only then the magistrate must approve detention. 
• An accused can be detained for investigation for a period exceeding 24 hours only after permission from the magistrate, as mandated by Section 167 of CrPC (Section 187 of BNSS,2023). Highlighting the negative effects of detention, the Court observed that it needs to be cautiously exercised as it affects the liberty and freedom of individuals. 
• However, the court pointed out that persons were not detained with caution, instead careless detention was a routine operation carried out by police officers. 
• Furthermore, it was held that the magistrate can authorise detention only in limited circumstances. The court held that arrests may be authorised only when the arrest is legal, essential, and adequately substantiated with reasons. If it is found that the arrest was unnecessary, then the magistrate can order the release of the accused. 

Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

• This provision was introduced through Section 6 of the CrPC Amendment Act, 2008. This Section empowers the police to call upon the accused after the issuance of legal notices to be present at a particular place and time. If the accused appears as per mandated he/she cannot be arrested.
• The Apex Court observed that if the privileges granted of arresting without warrant were carefully exercised then the wrongs committed by the police and their consequent rights violations would be reduced. This would ultimately decrease the caseload of the courts. 
• Therefore, the Apex Court emphasised that increasing unreasonable arrests and the misuse of  Section 41A was unhealthy and must be discontinued.

Guidelines for making an arrest (Arnesh Kumar guidelines)

The Apex Court laid down guidelines for the arrest of the accused by the police in non-cognisable offences. 

• State governments have to pass instructions to check arrests. State governments have to order police officers to exercise their power of arrests cautiously. Arrests under Section 498A must be made only if it has been satisfied that it is necessary and after following provisions of Section 41 of CrPC.
• The state is obligated to provide all police officers with a checklist containing the sub-clauses of Section 41 which need to be adhered to before arrests.
• While presenting the accused before the magistrate for detention, the police officer is obliged to furnish the checklist and the reasons that necessitated the arrest.
• The magistrate is required to prudently analyse the checklist, reasons and other documents put before him while granting or rejecting detention. 
• Further, any decision not to arrest the accused must be forwarded to the magistrate within two weeks of initiation of the case.
• The notice must be mandatorily given to the accused before initiating the case, in accordance with Section 41 of CrPC. 
• Failure to issue notice can lead to departmental action against the police, and contempt of court that can be initiated by the High Court possessing territorial jurisdiction. 
• Failure on the part of the magistrate to properly evaluate the reasons put forth and substantiate the detention can make him/her liable for contempt of court.
• Further, authorising detention without recording reasonable reasons shall render the magistrate for departmental action from the High Court. 
• The court held that these guidelines shall be applicable in all non-cognisable offences punishable with a maximum of seven years imprisonment and not in the offences of domestic violence or dowry deaths as in the present case. 
• Further, the court directed the order to be forwarded to the Director General of Police of all states and union territories and the registrar of police of all High Courts. 

Effects of the Judgment 

This judgement had several ramifications for police officers, jurists, and the members of society. This was the first time the court laid down comprehensive guidelines recognising the existence and negative effects of indiscriminate arrests. The court also specified severe consequences of not adhering to the established guidelines. This judgement has been the guiding light for several cases. The court in subsequent cases, analysed compliance with the guidelines laid down in the Arnesh Kumar case and on violation dismissed the arrest. Further, this case also impacted the law enforcement bodies. Law enforcement bodies are being forced to abide by these guidelines to avoid departmental action. Several law enforcement bodies have actively begun adhering to these guidelines fearing the negative consequences. Additionally, this case establishes a three-layered protection against misuse of power to arrest. First, it laid down guidelines for the police to follow, secondly, this case also mandates supervision by the magistrate while allowing or dismissing the police’s application for detention. Thirdly, this case also laid down a checklist of guidelines that the court needs to look for while deciding the application for bail or illegal arrests.

Case Laws after the Arnesh Kumar case

Munawar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 

The Apex Court in this case was analysing the application for interim bail of the accused. The accused was a standup comedian arrested for hurting religious sentiments. The Apex Court relied on the Arnesh Kumar case and passed an interim order allowing his interim bail. It held that the arrest was illegal because the guidelines mentioned in the Arnesh Kumar case were not followed. 

Kahkashan Kausar and Ors. vs. State of Bihar (2022)

The Supreme Court, in this case, was analysing a dispute over domestic violence. The court relied upon the Arnesh Kumar case, amongst several others, to highlight the misuse of Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court held that jurists also had a duty to ensure that the fabric of the society i.e., the family shall not be broken. 

Md Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2023)

• Adherence to the arrest guidelines laid down in the Arnesh Kumar case was in question in the present case. On similar lines to the present case, the Apex Court was dealing with an appeal under Section 498A of IPC. Further, the court laid down some additional guidelines to be followed along with those laid down in the Arnesh Kumar case to ensure stricter implementation of the general rule of bail over arrest. 
• The court observed that the denial of bail to the husband charged under Section 498A was erroneous provided complete cooperation of the accused with the police. However, the Arnesh Kumar guidelines specified that arrest may be made only if provisions of Section 41 of CrPC were attracted. An accused could be arrested only when found that he would escape, or tamper with evidence or any other valid reason. The court observed that none of these provisions is applicable in the present case and therefore, the arrest of the accused was not necessary. 
• The court laid down additional guidelines(16.2-16.4). The court directed the High Court to frame further guidelines for compliance by sessions and other criminal courts. Further, the court directed the director general of Police and High Courts to issue strict instructions for abiding by the Arnesh Kumar guidelines. Further, the court also ordered all High Courts to file affidavits regarding compliance with the additional guidelines. 

Corresponding Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) Sections of the laws involved

Details	IPC/CrPC Section	BNS/BNSS,2023 Section	Explanation
Arrest by police without warrant	Section 41 of CrPC	35(1)/(2) of BNSS	It deals with arrest procedures during non-cognizable offences. The BNSS provision includes a new sub-Section 7.  Section 35(7) of the BNSS specifies that an arrest cannot be made without the permission of an officer not less than the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police if the offence is punishable with less than 3 years and the accused is infirm or aged over 60 years.
Cruelty on wife	Section 498A of IPC	Section 85 of BNS, 2023	It deals with domestic violence i.e., physical or mental violence on the wife by the husband. No change in the IPC and BNS Sections on cruelty.
Anticipatory Bail	Section 438 of CrPC	Section 482 of BNSS	It deals with anticipatory bail and the conditions that can be imposed on the accused while granting it. Section 482 of BNSS does not incorporate the factors to be considered while granting anticipatory bail i.e., Section 438 (1-4) is omitted in Section 482 of BNSS.
Proclamation Offender	Section 82 of CrPC	Section 84 of BNSS	A proclamation order is issued by the court or State  against an accused who is absconding. The BNSS provision added a sentence of 10 years or more.
Warrants case	Section 2(x) of CrPC	Section 2(1)(z) of BNSS	It defines warrant cases as those that are punishable with death, life imprisonment or imprisonment exceeding two years. There is no difference between the CrPC and BNSS provisions.
Notice of appearance to accused	Section 41A of CrPC	Section 35(3) to 35(6) of BNSS	In some cases, when the accused need not be arrested, he may be asked to merely appear before the police. Sections 41 and 41A have been combined under Section 35 of the BNSS with Sections 35(3) to 35(6) of the BNSS explaining Section 41A of CrPC. Additionally, sub-Section 7 has been newly introduced.

Conclusion 

The case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014) is an important judgement for constitutional and criminal cases. The court recognised the menace of arbitrary arrests even in non-cognisable offences. Further, the court analysed the misuse of Section 498A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by wives seeking to get back at their husbands or their relatives. The court observed the vulnerability of misuse of these Sections and observed that it was necessary to lay down guidelines. Though this case related to the offence of Domestic violence, the court laid down universal guidelines to be followed while arresting and detaining persons accused of offences punishable with seven years or lesser imprisonment. The court laid down that the police officers must prepare a checklist, specifying reasons for arrest in accordance with Section 41A of CrPC. Further, magistrates are also required to properly peruse the reasons provided by the police with the application for detention and state proper reasons for allowing or dismissing the same. Non-compliance by the police or magistrate with the above guidelines would lead to strict departmental action against them. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Where is the arrest procedure mentioned?

The procedure for arrest is mentioned under Sections 41-60, Part V of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Sections 35-58 of BNSS. 

Who has the power to arrest?

Chapter 5 of BNSS, 2023 mentions the arrest procedure for arrest and the persons who can be arrested. Section 35 of BNSS specifies that Police officers have the power to arrest with or without a warrant. Further, Section 41 of BNSS,2023 mentions that the magistrate can arrest the accused, provided the same is necessary. Additionally, private individuals in whose presence an offence is committed, or if the person is a proclaimed offender, then even private individuals are entitled to arrest persons.

References

• https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-arnesh-kumar-guidelines-arrest-section-498a-high-court-director-general-of-police-notifications-234044 

---

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.