ARNESH KUMARversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

                         [2014] 8 S.C.R. 128


A                         ARNESH KUMAR
                                   V.
                     STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
                (Criminal Appeal No. 1277 of 2014)
                             JULY 2, 2014
B
            [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND PINAKI
        .           CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.]

         CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973:
c
         s.41and 167 - Arrest by police without warrant - Of
    persons accused of offences punishable with imprisonment
    upto seven years - Held: Section 41 makes it evident that a
    person accused of offence punishable with imprisonment for
0   a term which may be less than seven years or which may
    extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested
    by the police officer only on its satisfaction that such person
    had committed the offence - Before arrest police officer to
    record his satisfaction with regard to factors enumerated in
E   clauses (a) to (e) of s.41(1) - Arrest brings humiliation,
    curtails freedom and casts scars forever - The need for
    caution in exercising the drastic power of arrest has been
    emphasized time and again by courts but has not yielded
    desired result - The attitude to arrest first and then proceed
    with rest is despicable - It has become a handy tool to police
F   officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motive - No
    arrest should be made only because the offence is non-
    bailable and cognizable and therefore, lawful for police officers
    to do so - No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a
    mere allegation of commission of an offence made against
G   a person - Directions given in order to ensure that police
    officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate
    do not authorise detention casually and mechanically -
    Penal Code, 1860 - s. 498-A - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 -
    s.4.
H                                  128
         ARNESH KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR                      129


      s. 41-A - Notice of appearance before police officer -         A
Held: Where the arrest of a person is not required uls 41(1),
police officer is required to issue notice directing the accused
to appear before him at a specified place and time - Law
obliges such an accused to appear before police officer and
it further mandates that if such an accused complies with the        B
terms of notice he shall not be arrested, unless for reasons
to be recorded, police officer is' of the opinion that arrest is
necessary - At this stage a/so, condition precedent for arrest
as envisaged uls 41 has to be complied and shall be subject
to scrutiny by Magistrate.                                           c
       s.167 r/w s. 57- Judicial Magistrate authorising accused
 to police remand - Held: The power u/s 167 to q1.1thorise
 detention is a very solemn function - It affects the liberty and
 freedom of citizens and needs to be exercised with grtiat care
 and caution - Before a Magistrate authorises detention uls          D
 167, he has to be first satisfied that the arrest made is legal
 and in accordance with law and all the constitutional rights of
 the person arrested is satisfied -- The police officer effecting
 the arrest is required to furnish to the Magistrate, the facts,
 reasons and its conclusions for arrest and Magistrate in tum        E
-is to be satisfied that condition precedent for arrest uls 41 has
 been satisfied and it is only thereafter that he will authorise
 detention of an accused - Constitution on India, 1950 - Art.
22.
                                                                     F
      BAIL:

     Application of appellant for anticipatory bail - In a case
involving offences uls 498-A, /PC and s.4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act - Declined by High Court - Provisional bail granted by
Supreme Court on certain conditions - Held: Order granting           G
bail made absolute - Penal Code, 1860 - s.498-A - Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 - s.4.

    The appellant-husband apprehending his arrest in a
case of offences u/s 498-A IPC and s.4 of the Dowry                  H
           -         •--·
    130       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A Prohibition Act, 1961, having failed to secure anticipatory
  bail, filed the instant appeal. During the pendency of the
  appeal, the Supreme Court, by order dated 31.10.2013,
  granted provisional bail to the appellant.

8         Allowing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1.1. There is phenomenal increase in
  matrimonial disputes in recent years. Arrest bring!
  humiliation, curtails freedom and casts scars forever. Tht
  need for caution in exercising the drastic power of arres!
C has been emphasized time and again by courts but has
  not yielded desired result. The attitude to arrest first and
  then proceed with the rest is despicable. It has become
  a handy tool to the police officers who lack sensitivity or
  act with oblique motive. No arrest should be made only
D because the offence is non-bailable and cognizable and
  therefore, lawful for the police officers to do so. The
  existence of the power to arrest is one thing, the
  justification for the exercise of it is quite another. Apart
  from power to arrest, the police officers must be able to
E justify the reasons thereof. No arrest can be made in a
  routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an
  offence made against a person. [para 6- 8] [134-D; 135-
  B, D, E; 136-A]
       1.2. Section 41 makes it evident that a person
F accused of offence punishable with imprisonment for a
  term which may be less than seven years or which may
  extend to seven years with or without fine, ca!lnot be
  arrested by the police officer only on its satisfaction that
  such person had committed the offence. Apart from this,
G the police officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest
  is necessary for one or the more purposes envisaged by
  sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of s. 41 of Cr.PC. Police
  officer before arrest, in such cases has to be satisfied that
  such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from
H committing any further offence; or for proper
       ARNESH KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR                   131

investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from       A
causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or
tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to
prevent such person from making any inducement,
threat or promise ~o a witness so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or the police officer;       B
or-unless such accused person is arrested, his presence
in the court whenever required cannot be ensured. Law
mandates the police officer to state the facts and record
the reasons in writing which led him to come to a
conclusion while ·making such arrest. Law further               c
requires the police officers to record the reasons in
writing for not making the arrest. [para 9] [137-G-H; 138-
A-C]
     1.3. This Court is of the opinion that if the provisions
of s.41, Cr.PC which authorises the police officer to arrest    D
an accused without an order from a Magistrate and
without a warrant, are scrupulously enforced, the wrong
committed by the police officers intentionally or
unwittingly would be reversed and the number of cases
which come to the Court for grant of anticipatory bail will     E
substantially reduce. It is emphasised that the practice of
mechanically reproducing in the case diary all or most of
the reasons contained in s.41 Cr.PC for effecting arrest
be discouraged and discontinued. [para 13] [141-B-D]
    2. An accused arrested without warrant by the police        F
has the right- under Art. 22(2) of the Constitution of India
and s.57, Cr.PC to be produced before the Magistrate
without unnecessary delay and in no circumstances
beyond 24 hours excluding the time necessary for the
journey. The power u/s 167 CrPC to authorise detention          G
is a very solemn function. It affects the liberty anc!
freedom of citizens and needs to be exercised with great
care and caution. The experience shows that it is not
exercised with the seriousness it deserves. In many of the
cases. detention is authorised in a r()utine, casual and        H
     132     SUPREME COURT'REPORTS              [2014] 8 S.C.R.


 A cavalier manner~ Before a Magistrate authorises detention
   u/s 167, Cr.PC, he has to. be first satisfied that the arrest
   made is legal and in accordance with law and all the
   constitutional rights of the person arrested is satisfied.
   The police officer effecting the arrest is required to furnish
 B to the Magistrate, the facts, reasons and its conclusions
   for arrest and the Magistrate in turn is to be satisfied that
   condition precedent for arrest u/s. 41 Cr.PC has been
   satisfied and it is only thereafter that he will authorise the
   detention of an accused.' The Magistrate before
 C authorising detention will record his own satisfaction,
   may be in brief but the said satisfaction must reflect from
   his order. The Magistrate has to address the question
   whether specific reasons have b~en recorded for arrest
   and if so, prima facie those reasons are relevant and
   secondly a reasonable conclusion could at all be rettched
 0
   by the police officer that one or the other .conditions
   stated are attracted. To this limited extent the Magistrate
   will make judicial scrutiny. (para 10] (138-F-H; 139-A, D,
     G, HJ
 E       3.1. Further, s.41-A CrPC makes it clear that i" all
  • cases where the arrest of a person is not required u/s
    41 (1) Cr.PC, the police officer is required to issue notice
    dire.cting the accused to appear before him at a specified
    place and time. Law obliges such an accused to appear
 F before the police officer and it further mandates that if
    such an accused complies with the terms of notice he
    shall not be arrested, unless for reasons to be recorded,
    Hie police officer is of the opinion that the arrest is
    necessary. At this stage also, the condition precedent for
 G arrest as envisaged u/s 41 Cr.PC has to be complied and
    shall be subject to the scrutiny by the Magistrate. (para
    12] [140-G-H; 141-A-B]
        3.2. Directions are given in order to ensure that police
    officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and
- H Magistrate do not authorise detention casually andl
        ARNESH KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR                   133


mechanically. The directions issued shall not only apply A
to the cases u/s 498-A of the l.P.C. or s.4 of the Dowry·
Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also to such cases
where 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. [para B
15] (142-G-H; 143-A]

    4. The order dated 31.10.2013 granting provisional
bail to the appella'nt on certain conditions, is made
absolute. (para 17] (143-B, C]
                                                                 c
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1277 of 2014.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 08.10.2013 in CRLM
No. 30041/2013 of the High Court of Patna.                       D

    Rakesh Kumar, Kaushal Yadav for the Appellant.

     Rudreshwar Singh, Samir Ali Khan, Aparna Jha, Braj K.
.Mishra, Abhishek Yadav for the Respondents.
                                                                 E
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J. 1. The petitioner
apprehends his arrest in a case under Section 498-A of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as IPC) and
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The maximum        F
sentence provided under Section 498-A IPC is imprisonment
for a term which may extend to three years and fine whereas
the maximum sentence provided under Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act is two years and with fine.
                                                                 G
     2. Petitioner happens to be the husband of respondent
no.2 Sweta Kiran. Thl!!1narriage between them was solemnized
on 1st July, 2007. His attempt to secure anticipatory bail has
failed and hence he has knocked the door of this Court by way
of this Special Leave Petition.                                  H
      134       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A ·         3. Leave granted.

          4. In sum and substance, allegation levelled by the wife
    against the appellant is that demand of Rupees eight lacs, a
    maruti car, an air-conditioner, television set etc. was made by
    her mother-in-law and father-in-law and when this fact was
8
    brought to the appellant's notice, he supported his mother and
    threatened to marry another woman. It has been alleged that
    she was driven out of the matrimonial home due to non-
    fulfilment 0f the demand of dowry.

C        5. Denying these allegations, the appellant preferred an
    application for anticipatory bail which was earlier rejected by
    the learned Sessions Judge and thereafter by the High Court.

          6. There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes
D   in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered
    in this country. Section 498-A of the IPC was introduced with
    avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a
    woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact
    that Section 498-A is a cognizable and non-bailable offence
E   has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that
    are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives.
    The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his
    relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of
    cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the
    husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.
F   "Crime in India 2012 Statistics" published by National Crime
    Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of·
    1,97,762 persons all over India during the year 2012 for offence
    under Section 498-A of the IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011.
    Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012
G   were women Le. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters
    of t~e husbands were liberally includedjQ,.their arrest net. Its
    share is 6% out of the total p~rsons arrested under the crimes
    committed under Indian Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5% of
    total crimes committed under different sections of penal code,
H
         ARNESH KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR                          135
          [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.]

more than any other crimes excepting theft and hurt. The rate            A
of charge-sheeting in cases under Section 498A, IPC is as
high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is
lowest across all heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are
pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly 3, 17,000 are
likely to result in acquittal.                                           B

        7. Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and cast
 scars forever. Law makers know it so also the police. There is
 a battle between the law makers and the police and it seems
 that police has not learnt its lesson; the lesson implicit and          C
  embodied in the Cr.PC. It has not come out of its colonial image
  despite six decades of independence, it is largely considered
. as a tool of harassment, oppression and surely not considered
  a friend of public. The need for caution in exercising the drastic
  power of arrest has been emphasized time and again by Courts
  but has not yielded desired result. Power to arrest greatly            0
  contributes to its arrogance so also the failure of the Magistracy
  to check it. Not only this, the power of arrest is one of the
  lucrative sources of police corruption. The attitude to arrest first
  and then proceed with the rest is despicable. It has become a
  handy tool to the police officers who lack sensitivity or act with     E
  oblique motive.

       8. Law Commissions, Police Commissions and this Court
  in a large number of judgments emphasized the need to
  maintain a balance between individual liberty and societal order       F
 while exercising the i:>ower of arrest. Police officers make
  arrest as they believe that they possess the power to do so.
  As the arrest curtails freedom, brings humiliation and casts
  scars forever, we feel differently. We believe that no arrest
  should be made only because the offence is non-bailable and            G
  cognizable and therefore, lawful for the police officers to do so.
  The existence of the power to arrest is one thing, the justification
, for the exercise of it is quite another. Apart from power to
  arrest, the police officers must be able to justify the reasons
 :thereof. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere
                                                                         H
    136          SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A allegation of commission of an offence made against a person.
  It would be prudent and wise for a police officer that no arrest
  is made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some
  investigation as to the genuineness of the allegation. Despite·
  this legal position, the Legislature did not find any improvement.
B Numbers of arrest have not decreased. Ultimately, the
  Parliament had to intervene and on the recommendation of the
  177th Report of the Law Commission submitted in the year
  2001, Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short
  'Cr.PC), in the present form came to be enacted. It is interesting
c to note that such a recommendation was made by the Law·
  Commission in its 152nd and 154th Report submitted as back
  in the year 1994. The value of the proportionality permeates the
  amendment relating to arrest. As the offence with which we are
  concerned in the present appeal, provides for a maximum
  punishment of imprisonment which may extend to seven years
0
  and fine, Section 41 (1 )(b), Cr.PC which is relevant for the
  purpose reads as follows:

          "41. When police may arrest without warrant.-(1) Any
          police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and
E         without a warrant, arrest any person



          (a) x    x                  x x              x     x
F         (b) against whom a reasonable complaint has been made,
          or credible information has been received, or a
          reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a
          cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a
          term which may be less than s~ven years or which may
G         extend to seven years whether with or without fine, if the
          following conditions are satisfied, namely :-

           (i)    xx xx x


H
              ARNESH KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR                     137
               [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.]

       (ii)     the police officer is satisfied that such arrest is      A
                necessary-

       (a)      to prevent such person from committing any further
                offence; or
                                                                         B
       (b)      for proper investigation of the offence; or

       (c)      to prevent such person from causing the evidence
                of the offence to disappear or tampering with such
                evidence in any manner; or
                                                                         c
       (d)      to prevent such person from making any
                inducement, threat or promise to any person
                acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
                dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the
                Court or to the police officer; or
                                                                         D
       (e)      as unless such person is arrested, his presence in
                the Court whenever required cannot be ensured,

       and the police officer shall record while making such
      arrest, his reasons in writing:                                    E
      Provided that a police officer shall, in all cases where the
      arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of
      this. sub-section, record the reasons in. writing for not
      making the arrest.
                                                                         F
      x        x     x    x x    x

       9. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is
  evident that a person accused of offence punishable with
  imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years             G
  or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot
. be arrested by the police officer only on its satisfaction that such
' person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid.
  Police officer before arrest, in such cases has to be further
· satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person
                                                                         H
       138      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 8 S.C.R.


·~ ·A · from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation
      of the case; or to prevent the accused from causing the
      evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such
      evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making
      any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to
   B dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the
      police officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his
      presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured.
      These are the conclusions, which one may reach based on
      facts. Law mandates the police officer to state the facts and
   c  record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a
      conclusion cov~red by any of the provisions aforesaid, while
      making such arrest. Law further requires the police officers to
      record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest. In pith
      and core, the police office before arrest must put a question to
      himself, why arrest? Is it really required? What purpose it will
   0
      serve? What object it will achieve? It is only after these
      questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as
      enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to
      be exercised. In fine, before arrest first the police officers
     .should have reason to believe on the basis of information and
 - E material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from
      this, the police officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest
      is necessary for one or the more purposes envisaged by sub-
      clauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.PC.

   F      10. An accused arrested without warrant by the police has
     the constitutional right under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of
     India and Section 57, Cr.PC to be produced before the
     Magistrate without unnecessary delay and in no circumstances
     beyond 24 hours excluding the time necessary for the journey.
   G During the course of investigation of a case, an accused can
     be kept in detention beyond a period of 24 hours only when it
     is authorised by the Magistrate in exercise of power under
     Section 167 Cr.PC. The power to authorise detention is a very
     solemn function. It affects the liberty and freedom of citizens and
   H needs to be exercised with great care and caution. Our
         ARNESH KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR                         139
          ~HANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.]

experience tells us that it is not exercised with the seriousness       A
it deserves. In many of the cases, detention is authorised in a
routine, casual and cavalier manner. Before a Magistrate
authorises detention under Section 167, Cr.PC, he has to be
first satisfied that the arrest made is legal and in accordance
with law and all the constitutional rights of the person arrested       B
is satisfied. If the arrest effected by the police officer does not
satisfy the requirements of Section 41 of the Code, Magistrate
is duty bound not to authorise his further detention and release
the accused. In other words, when an accused is produced
before the Magistrate, the police officer effecting the arrest is       c
required to furnish to the Magistrate, the facts, reasons and its
conclusions for arrest and the Magistrate in turn is to be
satisfied that condition precedent for arrest under Section 41
Cr.PC has been satisfied and it is only thereafter that he will
authorise the detention of an accused. The Magistrate before
                                                                        0
authorising detention will record its own satisfaction, may be
in brief but the said satisfaction must reflect from its order. It
shall never be based upon the ipse dixit of the police officer,
for example, in case the police officer considers the arrest
necessary to prevent such person from committing any further
offence or for proper investigation of the case or for preventing
                                                                        E
an accused from tampering with evidence or making
 inducement etc., the police officer shall furnish to the Magistrate
the facts, the reasons and materials on the basis of which the
 police officer had reached its conclusion. Those shall be
 perused by the Magistrate while authorising the detention and          F
 only after recording its satisfaction in writing that the Magistrate
will authorise the detention of the accused. In fine, when a
 suspect is arrested and produced before a Magistrate for
 authorising detention, the Magistrate has to address the
 question whether specific reasons have been recorded for               G
 arrest and if so, prima facie those reasons are relevant and
 secondly a reasonable conclusion could at all be reached by
 the police officer that one or the other conditions stated above
 are attracted. To this limited extent the Magistrate will make
 judicial scrutiny.                                                     H
    140       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A        11. Another provision i.e. Section 41A Cr.PC aimed to
    avoid unnecessary arrest or threat of arrest looming large on
    accused requires to be vitalised. Section 41A as inserted by
    Section 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act,
    2008(Act 5 of 2009), which is relevant in the context reads as
B   follows:
          "41A. Notice of appearance before police officer.-(1) The
          police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person
          is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of
          Section 41, issue a notice directing the person against
c         whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible
          information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion
          exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to
          appear before him or at such other place as may be
          specified in the notice.
D         (2) Where such a notice is issued to any person, it shall
          be the duty of that person to comply with the terms of the
          notice.
         (3) Where such person complies and continues to comply
E        with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the
         offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be
         recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought
       · to be arrested.
          (4) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with
F         the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself,
          the police officer may, subject to such orders as may have
          been passed by a competent Court in this behalf, arrest
          him for the offence mentioned in the notice."
        12. Aforesaid provision makes it clear that in all cases
G where the arrest of a person is not required under Section 41 (1 ),
  Cr.PC, the police officer is required to issue notice directing
  the accused to appear before him at a specified place and
  time. Law obliges such an accused to appear before the police
  officer and it further mandates that if such an accused complies
H
        ARNESH KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR                       141
         [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.]
with the terms of notice he shall not be arrested, unless for       A
reasons to be recorded, the police office is of the opinion that
the arrest is necessary. At this stage also, the condition
precedent for arrest as envisaged under Section 41 Cr.PC has
to be complied and shall be subject to the same scrutiny by the
Magistrate as aforesaid.                                            B
     13. We are of the opinion that if the provisions of Section
41, Cr. PC· which authorises the police officer to arrest an
accused without an order from a Magistrate and without a
warrant are scrupulously enforced, the wrong committed by the
police officers intentionally or unwittingly would be reversed and C
the number of cases which come to the Court for grant oJ
anticipatory bail will substantially reduce. We would like to
emphasise that the practice of mechanically reproducing in the, ·
case diary all or most of the reasons contained in Section 41
Cr.PC for effecting arrest be discouraged and discontinued.        D

      14. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police
officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do
not authorise detention casually and mechanically. In order to
ensure what we have observed above, we give the following           E
direction:

      (1)   All the State Governments to instruct its police
            officers not to automatically arrest when a case
            under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but
            to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest    F
            under the parameters laid down above flowing from
            Section 41, Cr.PC;

      (2)   All police officers be provided with a check list
            containing specified sub-clauses under Section          G
            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
                                                                    H
    142         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A                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
B
                 recording its satisfa.ction, the Magistrate will
                 authorise detention;

          (5)    The decision not to arrest an accused, be
                 forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from
c                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;

D         (6)    Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of
                 Cr.PC 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;
E         (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
F                jurisdiction.

          (8)    Authorising detention without recording reasons as
                 aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall
                 be liable for departmental action by the appropriate
G                High Court.

       15. We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall
  not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the 1.P.C.
  or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand,
  but also such cases where offence is punishable with
H imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years
        ARNESH KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR                       143
         [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.]
or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without          A
fine.

     16. We direct that a copy of this judgment be forwarded
to the Chief Secretaries as also the Director Generals of
Police of all the State Governments and the Union Territories        B
and the Registrar General of all the High Courts for onward
transmission and ensuring its compliance.

    17. By order dated 31st of October, 2013, this Court had
granted provisional bail to the appellant on certain conditions.
We make this order absolute.                                         c
     18. In the result, we allow this appeal, making our aforesaid
order dated 31st October, 2013 absolute; with the directions
aforesaid.

Rajendra Prasad                                    Appeal allowed.
                                                                     D