Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar

Published On: 15th October, 2023

Authored By: Arpan Manna
Army Institute of Law, Mohali

Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar AIR 2014 SC 2756


Arnesh Kumar, the individual who brought the case to court, is hitched to Sweta Kiran. They had their wedding ceremony on July 1st, 2007. The spouse affirms that her mother-in-law and father-in-law inquired for a dowry of Rs. 8 lac, a Maruti car, an air-conditioner, a TV set, and other things. She says that when she told Arnesh Kumar almost this, he sided with his mother and indeed undermined to wed somebody else. Additionally, she states that she was constrained to take off the conjugal domestic since the endowment requests were not met.

The individual blamed, Arnesh Kumar, denies these allegations. He attempted to urge expectant safeguard, a lawful security against capture some time recently a potential charge, but his ask was turned down by both the Sessions Judge and the High Court. Since his endeavor to secure expected safeguard through anticipatory bail was unsuccessful, he brought his case to the Apex Court i.e. Supreme Court of India through a Special Petition of Leave as Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar.


Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar rotated around these fundamental questions:

  • Can the individual (the appealing party) apply for anticipatory bail?
  • Should the police officer capture somebody based on a complaint on the off chance that that individual is suspected of a genuine offense? In the event, if it is yes, then what rules should the examining organization take after the arrest?
  • What activities can be taken if a lady abuses Segment 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which bargains with conjugal cruelty?


These provisions were laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar:

  • Section 498-A of the Indian Corrective Code, 1860
  • Section 4 of the Settlement Disallowance Act, 1961
  • Sections 41, 41A, 57, 167, 438 of the Code of Criminal Method, 1973
  • Article 22 (2) of the Structure of India, 1950


On July 2, 2014, the Supreme Court reacted to a Special leave petition (SPL) recorded by Arnesh Kumar, who challenged his and his family’s capture beneath this law. Within the case of Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar and Anr., a two-judge board of the Incomparable Court inspected the application of area 41(1)(A) of the Criminal Procedural Code (CrPC), which states certain strategies before making any arrest. The court in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar watched that section 498A had turned into a powerful instrument for discontented spouses, coming about within the capture of guiltless people without significant proof, primarily since the law is non-bailable and cognizable. The Apex Court perceived that a few ladies were abusing the anti-dowry law (section 498A) to inconvenience their spouses and in-laws. As a reaction, the court limited the police from making captures exclusively based on complaints.

Further, the court in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar coordinated the police to follow Segment 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which gives a checklist to decide the need for a capture. Also, the court expressed that a judge must survey whether a confined denounced individual ought to be kept in advance guardianship. This choice pointed to strike an adjustment between anticipating abuse of the law and ensuring the rights of those accused.


The Supreme Court of India, in para 13 of its judgment in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar, issued headings to avert redundant arrest by police officers and unjust detainment approved by judges and magistrates. The Court has given the following recommendations as Arnesh Kumar Guidelines:

State Governments must educate their police officers not to naturally capture somebody when a case is enlisted beneath section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Capture ought to as it were be considered if the circumstance adjusts with the criteria laid out in section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

All police officers ought to have a checklist containing particular clauses specified in section 41(1)(b)(ii)

When presenting the accused in front of magistrates, the officer for advance detainment, police officer ought to submit the checklist together with reasons and prove defending the arrest.

Magistrates, when approving advance detainment, ought to depend on the report given by the police officer. The officer should only favor proceeded detainment after recording the reasons outfitted within the police report and being fulfilled with them.

The choice not to capture a blamed person ought to be communicated to the judge within two weeks from the start of the case. The Director of Police can amplify this timeframe, with recorded reasons.

The accused individual ought to be served with a Notice of Appearance concurring to section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure within two weeks from the case’s start. This time outline can be amplified by the Director of Police with composed reasons.

Failure to take after these bearings seems to result in the police officer being held in contempt of court by the fitting High Court.

Judicial magistrates who approve detainment without recording reasons may confront departmental procedures started by the High Court.


In 2014, there were reports expressing that the Arnesh Kumar Rules issued by the Apex (Supreme) Court of India were not being taken after by police stations due to communication gaps. In May 2021, the amicus curiae raised concerns that the Madhya Pradesh Police were not following the Arnesh Kumar case rules cited by the Apex Court. The Madhya Pradesh High Court requested the DGP M.P. to guarantee that the police abide by these guidelines. Those who had been captured without taking after the Arnesh Kumar Rules were permitted to look for normal safeguards (bail) based on the infringement of these rules. The court moreover encouraged the MP Judicial Academy to teach police officers and legal judges in concern with these guidelines.

In 2021, amid the moment wave of COVID-19 widespread in India, the SC underscored that arrests should not be made in inconsistency with the Arnesh Kumar Rules, given the stuffing of prisons.

In November 2021, the Telangana High Court, while tending to a request, allowed the accused people the right to start lawful procedures against police authorities if they abused the methods put forward in Section 41A CrPC and the Arnesh Kumar Rules. The court adjudged the police to entirely adhere to the strategy and rules, highlighting the criticality of any deviation.

A police officer was found guilty of contempt of court by the Delhi High Court on January 4th for detaining a man in breach of the standards imposed by the Supreme Court in the Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar case. This decision was noteworthy. For contempt of court, the police officer received a one-day jail term.

A police officer was found guilty of contempt in August 2022 by the Allahabad High Court for disobeying the “Arnesh Kumar Guidelines.” The police officer was given a 14-day jail term by the court.


The Indian Supreme Court provided rules regarding the arrest of people under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, a clause addressing domestic violence. The Court emphasized that arrests should not be routine but rather the exception, especially in cases when the maximum sentence is less than seven years in jail. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the court instructed police to follow the guidelines of Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code and offered a 9-point checklist for making an arrest. Magistrates were given instructions to consider the need for detention before approving it. The ruling sought to protect individual rights while preventing legal abuse. Legal action against police officers and magistrates may result from violations of these rules.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *