A person accused of a crime entailing maximum punishment of seven years should not be arrested "mechanically", the Supreme Court has said.
It has asked all high courts and state and union territory police chiefs to issue the necessary orders that have to be followed within eight weeks.
The directions by a bench of justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar came while deciding the plea of a man who was denied anticipatory bail by the Jharkhand High Court in a matrimonial dispute case lodged by his wife.
Setting aside the verdict of the high court, the top court granted bail to Md Asfak Alam, represented by lawyer Smarhar Singh, and reaffirmed the directions it had issued while granting bail in an earlier case of Arnesh Kumar vs state of Bihar.
“Our endeavour is to ensure that police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize detention casually and mechanically,” the bench said while issuing the directions.
Ordinarily, a bail is ought to be granted and, in serious cases, which involve allegations relating to offences carrying long sentences or other special offences, the court should be circumspect and careful in exercising discretion, the top court said.
“The High Court shall frame the ... directions in the form of notifications and guidelines to be followed by the Sessions courts and all other and criminal courts dealing with various offences.
“Likewise, the Director General of Police in all States shall ensure that strict instructions in terms of ...directions are issued. Both the High Courts and the DGPs of all States shall ensure that such guidelines and Directives/Departmental Circulars are issued for guidance of all lower courts and police authorities in each State within eight weeks from today,” the bench said.
It said the state governments will have to instruct its police officers not to automatically make an arrest when a case under Section 498-A (dowry harassment) of the IPC has been registered. It has to be done only after the officers looking into the case are satisfied about the necessity for arrest, it said.
“We hasten to add that the directions ...shall not only apply to the case under Section 498-A IPC or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also 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,” the apex court said.
The magistrate, while authorising detention of the accused, shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms of the directions and only after recording its satisfaction, the trial court magistrate will authorise detention, it said.
“The decision not to arrest an accused be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from 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,” it said.
Failure to comply with the directions will render police officers concerned liable for departmental action, it said, adding “they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction.”
-With PTI Input
