1) you can obtain AB from SC

2) dont go in for quashing now

3) in recent judgement SC has held that charge sheet in 498A cases are 93%but conviction only 15%

4)the SC held that before arrest first the police officers should have reason to believe on the basis of

information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the

police officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or the more

purposes envisaged by sub-clauses (a) to (e) ofclause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.PC.

5) the police officer is required to issue notice directing the accused to appear before him at a specified

place and time. Law obliges such an accused to appear before the police officer and it further

mandates that if such an accused complies with the terms of notice he shall not be arrested,

unless for reasons to be recorded, the police office is of the opinion that the arrest is

necessary.

6)police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise

detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give

the following direction:

(1) All the State Governments to instruct its

police officers not to automatically arrest

when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC

is registered but to satisfy themselves

about the necessity for arrest under the

17Page 18

parameters laid down above flowing from

Section 41, Cr.PC;

(2) All police officers be provided with a

check list containing specified sub-clauses

under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);

(3) The police officer shall forward the check

list duly filed and furnish the reasons and

materials which necessitated the arrest,

while forwarding/producing the accused

before the Magistrate for further

detention;

(4) The Magistrate while authorising detention

of the accused shall peruse the report

furnished by the police officer in terms

aforesaid and only after recording its

satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise

detention;

(5) The decision not to arrest an accused, be

forwarded to the Magistrate within two

weeks from the date of the institution of

18Page 19

the case with a copy to the Magistrate

which may be extended by the Superintendent

of police of the district for the reasons

to be recorded in writing;

(6) Notice of appearance in terms of Section

41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused

within two weeks from the date of

institution of the case, which may be

extended by the Superintendent of Police of

the District for the reasons to be recorded

in writing;

(7) Failure to comply with the directions

aforesaid shall apart from rendering the

police officers concerned liable for

departmental action, they shall also be

liable to be punished for contempt of court

to be instituted before High Court having

territorial jurisdiction.

(8) Authorising detention without recording

reasons as aforesaid by the judicial

Magistrate concerned shall be liable for

departmental action by the appropriate High court

1. You have yourself stated that you have proof that the allegations of beating and demand of car are false. What are those proofs? Are they documentary in nature? Your final round of legal battle to obtain bail from The Supreme Court has to be founded on the exculpatory evidence you have.

2. It is never easy to get AB and that too from the Supreme Court of India. However, you have no other remedy after the dismissal of your bail petition by the High Court.

3. Obtain AB first and save yourself from the ordeal of going to jail. After AB is obtained you may apply for quashing of the FIR.

1. Were these proofs not shown to the High Court?

2. You may now seek bail from the SC on the basis of the proof which you have.

1. You should have complied with section 406 by sending her stredhan by transporter and submitted the evidence while filing AB,

2. Now, you have no other option but to apply for AB from the apex Court,

3. Comply with section 406 now and then apply for AB before the supreme court,

4. First obtain AB, then file an application for quashing the said FIR.

1. The said evidence should have been submitted before the High Court while applying for AB,

2. However, submit all these evidence while applying for the said AB before the Supreme Court.

1) why did you not submit those evidence before HC . if you had taken the plea that you were out of station at the relevant time when assault was alleged and had produced documentary evidence you should have been granted AB

2) similarly if model of car alleged to be demanded was not available for sale it does create suspicion that allegations are false

Dear Querist

file anticipatory bail before SC along with the Judgement of Arnesh kumar Vs state of Bihar in which the Apex Court held the directions regarding 498A case.

the bail may be grant