J&K&L HC Quashes 65-Year-Old's Detention, says Cattle Smuggling isn't Public Disorder  ||  Karnataka HC Bars Denial of MV Inspector Posts over Experience with Non-Existent HGV/HPV Vehicles  ||  P&H HC: Lengthy Incarceration alone is No Substantial Change for Repeat Bail Plea  ||  Meghalaya HC Flags Amicus' Non-Appearance amid Lawyers' Strike, Stresses Loyalty to Justice  ||  MP HC: Arms Act doesn't allow Sports Firearm Licence Conversion to Self-Defence Category  ||  Delhi HC: Public Funding of LTC, CGHS Benefits doesn't Mandate Personal Disclosure under RTI  ||  Delhi HC: Fake Caste Certificate alone cannot Justify Removing Advocate from State Rolls  ||  Delhi HC Refuses to Stop Sale of 47 Law Books in Family Copyright Dispute  ||  Supreme Court: S. 394 IPC Conviction Requires Proof of Robbery or Attempted Robbery  ||  Supreme Court Questions MP HC's Cryptic Reduction of Murder Conviction as 'Shocking'    

Rupesh vs. The State Of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-NAG:6250) - (High Court of Bombay) (18 Jun 2024)

Police officer needs to record his reasons in writing while making the arrest

MANU/MH/3725/2024

Criminal

By present application, the applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime registered with Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).Applicant submitted that the accusation against the present applicant is on the basis of report lodged by Suraj Subhashrao Chopade on an allegation that the applicant has obtained the amount from him for purchasing the Bajaj Electric Scooter and LG Television and on his demand, he has not paid the amount and thus he is duped by the present applicant. On the basis of said report, police have registered the crime against the present applicant.

In view of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, the investigating officer is under obligation to issue the notice under Section 41. Section 41 under Chapter V of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) deals with the arrest of persons. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that even for a cognizable offence, an arrest is not mandatory as can be seen from the mandate of this provision. If the officer is satisfied that a person has committed a cognizable offence, punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years, or which may extend to the said period, with or without fine, an arrest could only follow when he is satisfied that there is a reason to believe or suspect, that the said person has committed an offence, and there is a necessity for an arrest. Such necessity is drawn to prevent the committing of any further offence, for a proper investigation, and to prevent him/her from either disappearing or tampering with the evidence.

The provision mandates the police officer to record his reasons in writing while making the arrest. Thus, a police officer is duty-bound to record the reasons for arrest in writing. The consequence of non-compliance with Section 41 shall certainly inure to the benefit of the person suspected of the offence.

The nature of the dispute is of a prima facie civil nature. As far as the custodial interrogation is concerned, there is no satisfaction by the Investigating Officer why the arrest of the applicant is required. Application allowed by imposing certain conditions.

Tags :   PRE-ARREST BAIL  GRANT  CONDITION

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved