The apex court’s sug­ges­tions

Alive - - Realty Shocker -

It may be re­called here that a Bench headed by Jus­tice Chan­dra­mauli Kr Prasad and Jus­tice Pi­naki Chan­dra Ghose had given a land­mark judg­ment in Ar­nesh Ku­mar v state of Bi­har & Anr on 2 July 2014 where the Supreme Court gave cer­tain guide­lines to be fol­lowed. They are as fol­lows:

All state gov­ern­ments have to in­struct its po­lice of­fi­cers that they can­not au­to­mat­i­cally ar­rest a person un­der Sec­tion 498A of IPC but and un­der pa­ram­e­ters of Sec­tion 41 of Cr PC.

These po­lice of­fi­cers should be given check­list spec­i­fy­ing the Sec­tion 41(1)(b)(ii).

Then these of­fi­cers should fully add in the rea­sons which made them to ar­rest a person and then pro­duce him be­fore Mag­is­trate without de­lay for fur­ther ac­tions.

Mag­is­trate can then au­tho­rise de­ten­tion of such person only af­ter pe­rus­ing the re­ports pro­duced by po­lice of­fi­cer and then record the same.

If a de­ci­sion has to be put for not ar­rest­ing the ac­cused, then it must be done within 2 weeks from the in­sti­tu­tion of the case.

It has to be in writ­ing to the Mag­is­trate.

Un­der Sec­tion 41A of Cr PC no­tice of ap­pear­ance should be served on the ac­cused and it should be done within 2 weeks from in­sti­tu­tion of the case in writ­ing.

If any po­lice of­fi­cer fails to com­ply with these di­rec­tions then he can be li­able for de­part­men­tal ac­tions and these di­rec­tions of court will ap­ply even to Sec­tion 4 of the Dowry Pro­hi­bi­tion Act along with Sec­tion 498A of IPC.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.