in spite of CrPc 41A, and SC order in “Arnesh Kumar” case, men are forced to run for bail / stay of arrest

Families keep running 4 stay of arrest / anticipatoy bail. Even 2 years after Arnesh Kumar & many years after Sec 41A CrPC was promulgated. there seems to be no end to the Jail bail syndrome and resultant harassment

In the famous case of “..Arnesh Kumar Vs State Of Bihar & Anr, Criminal Appeal No. 1277 Of 2014 (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9127 Of 2013)…” the honorable supreme court has ruled out automatic arrests of in-laws in Dowry (498a) cases or other cases where the punishment is less than 7 years.

Even before this case, The government had introduced Sec 41 A of Criminal procedure code which reads as 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 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.
(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 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 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.”
*[Clause 41A Inserted by Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment act, 2008 and sub-clause (1) further modified by Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment act, 2010]
**[sub-clause (4) substituted by Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment act, 2010]…”

However, still families are harassed with the fear of arrest and keep approaching courts for stay or arrest or for anticipatory bail !! Here is one such case



Writ Petition (Criminal) No.589 of 2016

Ravi Arora ……Petitioner


State of Uttarakhand and others ….. Respondents

Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

Heard Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General with Ms. Shruti Joshi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1 & 2.

A First Information Report has been lodged by the respondent No.3 against present petitioner (husband) and in- laws which has been registered as Case Crime No.108 of 2016 under Sections 498A/323/504 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, at Police Station Kotwali, District Dehradun. Apprehending his arrest, petitioner has approached this Court for relief.

The present petitioner was married to the respondent No.3 on 18.01.2012 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Thereafter, there is a matrimonial discord. There are allegations of demand of dowry, cruelty etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per averments made in the first information report, all the incidents have occurred at Jalandhar (Punjab). ; ;

Considering the overall evidence which is presently available on record and the fact that the matter is a matrimonial discord, an interference is called for by this Court in the matter.

As an interim measure, it is provided that though the investigation may go on but till the next date of listing petitioner shall not be arrested nor any coercive measures shall be taken against him in pursuance of Case Crime No.108 of 2016 under Sections 498A/323/504 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, at Police Station Kotwali, District Dehradun, provided the petitioner cooperates in the investigation.

Learned State counsel has accepted notices on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

Issue notice to the respondent No.3. Steps to be taken within a week.

Let counter affidavit be filed by the respondents within a period of three weeks.

List this matter on 14.06.2016 in the daily cause list.

(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)
JKJ 13.05.2016



This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s