Brief Facts:
Arnesh Kumar, the petitioner, was implicated in a criminal case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS),2023)and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. He had allegedly subjected his wife to cruelty for dowry, following which an FIR was lodged against him. Anticipating arrest, he approached the Supreme Court, raising concerns over the misuse of Section 498A IPC (section 85 of the BNS,2023), arguing that arrest procedures under this provision were often mechanically exercised without due consideration.

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Hon'ble Justice Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, Hon'ble Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Judgment Date: July 2, 2014
Citation: 2014(1) TVT 1 (SC); (2014) 8 SCC 273

Issue:
The primary issue before the court was whether arrest in cases registered under Section 498A IPC(section 85 of the BNS,2023) and the Dowry Prohibition Act should be made routinely, or if specific guidelines were required to prevent the abuse of the legal process.

Relevant Statutory Provisions:

1. Section 498A, IPC (Section 85 of the BNS, 2023): This section criminalizes cruelty to a woman by her husband or his relatives, often connected to demands for dowry. The offense is cognizable and non-bailable.
2. Section 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: Punishes any person who demands dowry directly or indirectly from the bride or her family.
3. Section 41, (Code of Criminal Procedure, CrPC), 1973 / 35(1)/(2), The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita BNSS, 2023: Governs the circumstances under which police officers can arrest a person without a warrant. The provision mandates that arrests can only be made when there is a reasonable satisfaction of necessity, rather than being routine or mechanical.
4. Article 21, Constitution of India: The fundamental right to life and personal liberty, underscoring that no individual shall be deprived of these except according to the procedure established by law.

Court's Observations and Judgment:
The Supreme Court lamented the misuse of Section 498A IPC (Section 85 BNS, 2023), wherein arrest powers were frequently exercised without sufficient basis, leading to unnecessary harassment of individuals, especially husbands and their families. The Court emphasized that "arrest" is a significant infringement on personal liberty, which should not be carried out mechanically.

The Court held that before making an arrest under Section 498A IPC(section 85 BNS,2023) or any other offense punishable with imprisonment for a term up to seven years, the police must:

• Conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine the veracity of the allegations.
• Ensure that there is credible evidence to support the necessity of arrest.
• The decision to arrest should be made after recording the reasons as mandated under Section 41 CrPC (35(1)/(2), The BNSS, 2023).

The judgment reiterated that non-compliance with Section 41 CrPC(section 35(1)/(2) ,The BNSS,2023). would attract contempt of court proceedings. The Court also directed the Magistrates not to authorize detention mechanically but to ensure that police had followed due process, especially adherence to the guidelines laid down under Section 41A CrPC (Section 35(3) to 35(6) BNSS,2023).

Ratio Decidendi:
Arrest is a draconian measure, and in light of Article 21 of the Constitution, it must be exercised judiciously and in accordance with the procedural safeguards enshrined in Section 41 and Section 41A of the CrPC (section 35(1)/(2) ,Section 35(3) to 35(6) The BNSS,2023). The misuse of provisions like Section 498A IPC (section 85 of the BNS,2023) necessitates a stricter scrutiny of arrests to avoid arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty.

Conclusion:
The Arnesh Kumar judgment is a landmark decision that sought to curb the misuse of Section 498A IPC(section 85 of the BNS,2023), which had become a tool of harassment against husbands and their relatives. By advocating the principle of "arrest as an exception, not the rule," the Supreme Court fortified the protection of personal liberty, underscoring the importance of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment has since served as a significant precedent in ensuring that arrests, especially in dowry-related cases, are not made in a routine or mechanical manner but are justified by concrete evidence and legal necessity.