The Telangana High Court in its recent order granted liberty to an accused to initiate proceedings against police officials if the procedure for arrest under Section 41A CrPC is violated. The Court reminded that the police are duty bound to follow the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the ‘Arnesh Kumar’ case for arrest.
Case:
According to the complainant, a head of an education/ job consultancy firm in Secunderabad, made a fake job offer to him, promising that he would get employment abroad upon payment of Rupees 10 lakh. 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.
Accused Man Booked By Police
Soon after the receipt of complaint, the 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.
A single-judge bench of Justice Lalita Kanneganti was hearing the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner, primarily accused of cheating under Section 420 IPC.
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. The court remarked,
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 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. In the order, the court said,
Any deviation in this regard (procedure under Section 41A CrPC and Arnesh Kumar Guidelines) will be viewed very seriously.
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 22nd November.
MUST WATCH –
My Brother Was Beaten Up In Police Custody On Mere 498A Complaint By His Wife | Husband’s Sister
ALSO READ –
READ ORDER | Telangana High Court Denies Bail To Mother Who Allowed Her Live-in Partner To Impregnate Minor Daughter Repeatedly
READ ORDER | Karnataka High Court Upholds Shared Parenting Order By Family Court; Lays Down Guidelines For Non-Custodial Parents
READ ORDER | Parent Cannot Be Guest In Child’s Life; Mother Guilty Of Violating Family Court Order
Hyderabad Woman Files False Gangrape Complaint After Neighbour Refuses To Give Rs 10,000
Join our Facebook Group or follow us on social media by clicking on the icons below
Join our Facebook Group or follow us on social media by clicking on the icons below
If you find value in our work, you may choose to donate to Voice For Men Foundation via Milaap OR via UPI: voiceformenindia@hdfcbank (80G tax exemption applicable)
Follow Us
