Police Officials To Face Action If Arrest Procedure Under Sec 41A CrPC & 'Arnesh Kumar' Guidelines Are Violated : Telangana High Court

While hearing the application under Section 438 CrPC, the court noted that when the punishment for an offence is below seven years, police officials are obligated to follow the apex court guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, and follow the procedure under Section 41-A CrPC by issuing a notice demanding the appearance of the accused.

"If the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the police in not following the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and resorting to other means and measures by threatening him to compromise the matter, petitioner is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against the officers concerned. It is further directed that having issued notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., the police are bound to follow the procedure and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court", the court records in the order.

According to the complainant, the accused made a fake job offer to the complainant promising that he would get employment abroad upon payment of Rupees 10 Lakhs. The complainant duly paid the amount demanded by the accused in hopes of securing a job in a foreign country. Thereafter, even after repeated attempts, the accused was not receptive to the inquiries made about the job, the complainant alleged. The complainant also alleged that the accused had been attempting to flee the country.

Soon after the receipt of complaint, the petitioner accused was booked for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506 IPC. Subsequently, he approached the Telangana High Court under Section 438 CrPC for anticipatory bail.

It was the petitioner's case that contrary to the procedure followed under Section 41A CrPC for similar offences, the police was adamant to compromise the issue with the complainant. They were even threatening the accused of arrest if he won't listen to them, the counsel submitted before the court.

The High Court also recalled that an interim order was passed previously on the same grievance made by the accused. Before the interim order was passed, the counsel for petitioner asked the police to consider the nature of offence, which is a bailable offence with less than seven years of imprisonment prescribed in the code, and take steps accordingly. Hence, the court had then stated in the interim order:

"In case the petitioner is required for the purpose of investigation, Respondent No.4 - Station House Officer, Tukaramgate Police Station is directed to follow procedure under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar's case".

Despite this interim order, the police officials have been harassing the accused to enter into a compromise, submitted the counsel.

"Any deviation in this regard (procedure under Section 41A CrPC and Arnesh Kumar Guidelines) will be viewed very seriously", the court said in the order.

When the petitioner requested a copy of the order on the same day apprehending arrest by police, Justice Lalita Kanneganti went on to elaborately discuss the strict limitations of furnishing certified copies of bail orders for release. The court observed that the indefeasible right of an accused to bail, guaranteed by the constitution, is not sufficient in itself as long as the bail orders cannot be furnished in a timely manner. Accordingly, Telangana High Court has also dispensed with the requirement of certified copies of bail orders and held that e-copies will be accepted from 22^nd November.

Case Title: V. Bharath Kumar v. State of Telangana

Case No: CRL.P. No. 8108/ 2021

Also Read: E-Copies Of Bail Orders Sufficient For Release; Certified Copies Not Necessary: Telangana High Court

Delay In Communication Of Bail Orders To Jail Authorities Affects Human Liberty, Must Be Addressed On War Footing: Justice DY Chandrachud

Click Here To Read/ Download Order