Petitioner sought pre-arrest protection in a Mahila P.S. case under Sections 498A and 494/34 IPC. Relying on Arnesh Kumar and Mohd. Asfak Alam directions restricting unnecessary arrests, the court held no arrest apprehension subsisted and disposed of the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6602 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2023 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Munger
======================================================
Ajit Kumar @ Binay Kumar S/O Dilip Mandal R/O- Oriap, P/S- Antichak, Dist. Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajive Ranjan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nityanand, APP ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER
2 20-02-2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6602 of 2024(2) dt.20-02-2024 2/3
directions in order to ensure that police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrates do not authorise detention casually and mechanically:
“ 11.1. All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 CrPC;
11.2. All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);
11.3. The police officer shall forward the check list duly filled and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;
11.4. 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;
11.5. 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;
11.6. Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6602 of 2024(2) dt.20-02-2024 3/3
reasons to be recorded in writing;
11.7. 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 the High Court having territorial jurisdiction.
11.8. Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental act ion by the appropriate High Court.”
of.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Ashish/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner apprehending arrest in a case under Sections 498A and 494/34 IPC is entitled to anticipatory bail protection.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arnesh Kumar v. State of BiharRelied on
(2014) 8 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
Mohd. Asfak Alam v. State of JharkhandRelied on
(2023) 8 SCC 632 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Ajit Kumar @ Binay Kumar
Arun Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
