NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved