Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16709 (3.29 seconds)
Documents citing Arnesh Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 2 July, 2014

L.Muruganantham vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By ... on 27 August, 2021

13. The State Human Rights Commission upon a perusal of the FIR and the statements of the witnesses made under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had come to the conclusion that the Police Officer, viz. the Sub Inspector of Police had not applied his mind as to whether arrest is required or not. The fact that the petitioner is a disabled person was not taken into account and the petitioner was treated as any other ordinary person. The very arrest, according to the State Human Rights Commission, 11/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.22431 and 22527 of 2021 based on the allegations contained in the FIR was fully unnecessary and the Sub Inspector of Police had not followed the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding arrest in its judgment in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document

Mohammad Raja vs The State Of Bihar on 17 September, 2025

16. This Court is of the opinion that both the orders compliment each other. While the first order gives directions to the Police and the learned Magistrates to strictly adhere to the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 51/51 order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) as also the guidelines issued by the Patna High Court and not to act mechanically, the second order observes that when the anticipatory bail has already reached the Court, it be decided on merit.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - R Roy - Full Document

Nasir Alim Hashmi (Mir Abdul Nasir ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Kurkheda ... on 12 August, 2024

19. In conclusion, no absolute proposition can be laid that arrest is wholly illegal in cases of bailable offences. However, the arrest shall be in exceptional cases, with a 17 3.cri.wp.855.2022 J..odt mandate to release the accused on bail, if he is prepared to do so. We see no material nor a contention of accused that after arrest they have prepared or applied for bail. Grant of PCR in bailable offences is not approvable in law unless special circumstances are shown but for that the Police cannot be held responsible. The petitioners have failed to make out a case that the arrest was wholly illegal as well as there is blatant breach of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (supra). In the circumstances, the petition deserves to be dismissed, hence we do so accordingly. No order as to costs.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - V G Joshi - Full Document

Zarina Begum vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 May, 2021

32.3 If there is non-compliance of paragraph 11.2 and/or 11.3 of Arnesh Kumar's case, the Magistrate shall not authorise the further detention of the accused and shall release forthwith as the arrest itself is unlawful and therefore, his detention would also be rendered unlawful on account of the police not having fulfilled the requirements of section 41 of CRPC. 32.4 It is mandatory for the Magistrate authorising detention to record his independent satisfaction and also ensure in his order of remand that his satisfaction for further remand of the accused stands satisfied in compliance of paragraph 11.4 of Arnesh Kumar's judgement.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 15 - A Sreedharan - Full Document

In Re vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 May, 2021

9. Taking into consideration the recommendations made by the High Powered Committee in its meeting held on 12.05.2021 and the order passed by the Division Bench, we not only direct the Principal Secretary, Home Department, to issue directions to the Director General of Police and to Station House Officers of State of Andhra Pradesh to scrupulously follow the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (supra) referred to above while arresting offenders in relation to the offences punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend up to 7 years or less, but also direct release on interim bail ali convicts and under trial prisoners who have been released on interim bail earlier pursuant to resolutions of the High Powered Committee on 26.03.2020 and 28.03.2020 and have been re-admitted to the prison, unless otherwise they are disqualified. We also direct the release of other convicts and under trial prisoners who are in custody in connection with offences punishable for a term which may extend up to 7 years or less with or without fine and qualified for such release as per the resolutions of the High Powered Committee dated 26.03.2020 i.e., except those who either second offender or convicted or facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. and POCSO Act. Having regard f ay 7?
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - C P Kumar - Full Document

Kuldeep vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 January, 2023

32. We also expect the courts to come down heavily on the officers effecting arrest without due compliance of Section 41 and Section 41-A. We express our hope that the investigating agencies would keep in mind the law laid down in Arnesh Kumar [Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 449] , the discretion to be exercised on the touchstone of presumption of innocence, and the safeguards provided under Section 41, since an arrest is not mandatory. If discretion is exercised to effect such an arrest, there shall be procedural compliance. Our view is also reflected by the interpretation of the specific provision under Section 60-A of the Code which warrants the officer concerned to make the arrest strictly in accordance with the Code."
Karnataka High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next