CAUSETITLE:
ARNESH KUMAR V STATE OF BIHAR & ANR
DATE OF ORDER:
02-07-2014
JUDGE(S):
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Facts Of the Case
- The marriage between Arnesh Kumar, the petitioner, and Sweta Kiran, the second respondent, was celebrated on July 1, 2007. After his wife Sweta Kiran confirmed that the petitioner had asked for or demanded dowry from her, Arnesh Kumar was detained by Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961.
- Sweta Kiran, the named Respondent, said in court that the petitioner's family had demanded Rs. 8 Lakhs, a Maruti Car, an Air Conditioner, a Television Set, and other items. When Sweta Kiran disclosed the information in the petitioner's notice, he stood behind his family member and threatened to wed a different woman if the request was not granted.
- The petitioner requested anticipatory bail, which was initially denied by the Court of Session and then by the High Court, despite his denial of all the respondent's accusations. Angered by the decision to deny anticipatory relief, the petitioner filed an appeal with the Supreme Court using a Special Leave Petition.
ISSUES RAISED
- The granting of anticipatory bail was the sole issue at hand in this particular instance.
- Accused person's rights both before and after arrest.
- What remedies are available to someone who believes that women have abused Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code?
ANALYSIS OF COURT
- The Supreme Court granted provisional bail to the petitioner for various reasons in its decision. In this groundbreaking decision, the Court not only granted bail but also reviewed and touched on issues that had not before been addressed, such as the misuse of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The court concluded its decision by providing eight golden principles/directions for detaining someone under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
- When dealing with the question of anticipatory bail about an offense under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the Supreme Court first emphasized the misuse of Section 498-A and stated that:
- Section 498-A was enacted with the primary goal of combating women's harassment and abuse at the hands of their husbands and relatives. The defense under Section 498-A is cognizable and non-bailable, earning it a dubious place of honor among provisions that are wielded as weapons rather than shields by disgruntled women. The most straightforward approach to harassment is to have the husband and his family arrested under this law. In a lot of cases, the husband's sick grandfathers and grandmothers, as well as their sister who has been living overseas for decades, are arrested.
- Following it, the Supreme Court issued observations about the arrest. The Supreme Court noted:
- Arrest results in humiliation, limits freedom and leaves permanent scars. Both lawmakers and the police are aware of it. Lawmakers and police are at odds, and it appears that neither side has learned the implicit lesson contained in the code of the criminal process. Despite sixty years of independence, it still carries a colonial stigma; it is primarily viewed as a weapon of tyranny and harassment, and it is unquestionably not regarded as the public's friend.
- The courts have repeatedly emphasized the need for discretion when using the severe power of arrest, but this hasn't had the desired impact. The Magistracy's inability to restrain it as well as its hubris are both substantially exacerbated by the power of arrest. Additionally, one of the profitable avenues for police corruption is the ability to make arrests. The mentality of making one arrest first and then moving on to the rest is abhorrent. It has developed into a useful tool for police officers who lack emotional intelligence or behave inexplicably.
- The appellant was given provisional bail by the court.
