Kar. HC: Before Cancelling FCRA Registration, Reasonable Opportunity of Hearing to be Given  ||  Kar. HC: Before Cancelling FCRA Registration, Reasonable Opportunity of Hearing to be Given  ||  Kar HC: PIL Seeking Direction for Government Correspondence to be Done in Kannada Language, Rejected  ||  Money Laundering Case: Jharkhand’s Former Chief Minister Heman Soren Granted Bail  ||  Gauhati High Court: State Government Pulled Up for Not Responding to PIL filed for Water Logging  ||  Sikkim HC: Accused Unable to Engage Counsel Within Requisite Time, Delay of 388 Days Condoned  ||  Gau. HC: Claimant Pulled for Concealing that Compensation had been Received for Loss of Vehicle  ||  Patna HC: Oral Evidence Admissible to Prove Contents of Document u/s 92 of IEA  ||  Bombay HC: Need Robust System to Prevent Deaths of People Travelling by Mumbai Local Train  ||  Tri. HC: No Scope of Appeal u/s 54 of Land Acquisition Act Against Executing Court’s Orders    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved