Guidelines on Arrest in Arnesh Kumar Reiterated in Md Asfak Alam Judgement

In the judgement in Md Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand & Anr, the Supreme Court reiterated its Guidelines on Arrest issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another case and the details are as follows:

What do the Arnesh Kumar guidelines state?

The Arnesh Kumar judgements states that the police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically, and it issued a set of eight guidelines.

The guidelines would apply not only to the cases under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, but also such cases where an offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.

The eight-point guidelines in the judgement

1. All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498A 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;
2. All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);
3. 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;
4. 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;
5. 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;
6. Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of CrPC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
7. 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 having territorial jurisdiction.
8. Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate high court.

What has the Supreme Court said in Md Asfak Alam judgement?

The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of strictly observing the Arnesh Kumar guidelines, besides directing the high courts and police chiefs of all states to issue notifications and circulars containing these guidelines within eight weeks.

The judgement states: “Once the charge sheet was filed and there was no impediment, at least on the part of the accused, the court having regard to the nature of the offences, the allegations and the maximum sentence of the offences they were likely to carry, ought to have granted bail as a matter of course. However, the court did not do so but mechanically rejected and, virtually, to rub salt in the wound directed the appellant to surrender and seek regular bail before the trial court. The high court fell into error in adopting such a casual approach. The impugned order, therefore, cannot stand, and is hereby set aside.”