Judgment The defacto complainant, who is the petitioner herein seeks a direction to police to secure the accused at the earliest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused have committed an offence under Section 420 I.P.C. and a case is came to be registered only after a direction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C, but still the accused are roaming and have no regard for law. 3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that the investigation is going on. 4. Commission of a cognizable offence has been complained of. Accordingly, an F.I.R. has been registered under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, there is the requirement to investigate it. (See Section 156, 157 Cr.P.C.). Arrest is a process, tool of investigation. 5. Arrest is anti-thesis of civil liberty. It is draconian in nature. Power of arrest is given to police under Section 41 Cr.P.C. Misuse of this power of arrest has become order of the day. Thus, in its recent judgment, in ARNISH case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court used very strong words. It remarked that source of police corruption of India is their power of arrest under Section 41 Cr.P.C. 6. The word employed in Section 41 Cr.P.C. is 'may' and not 'shall' or 'should'. So, police 'may' arrest and it is not 'must' arrest. 7. In JOGINDER SINGH Vs. AJAIB SINGH ( AIR 1968 SC 1422 ) and D.K. BASU Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (AIR (1997) SC 610) large scale human rights violation has been brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down several guidelines for the police to arrest and they are mostly observed much breach than in adherence. 8. No Court can direct police to arrest because the language used in Section 41 Cr.P.C. is not mandatory in nature. Further, recent amendment to Section 41 Cr.P.C. also amplifies this position. Existence of power of arrest is one thing and exercise of the said power is another thing. 9. To arrest a person is to be determined by the investigation officer. It must be, only and really needed for the purpose of investigation. When the investigation officer found to do or do some malpractices, then the superior police officers above the rank of Station House Officer, such as D.S.P./A.S.P., Addl. S.P., S.P., D.I.G., I.G. etc. 9. To arrest a person is to be determined by the investigation officer. It must be, only and really needed for the purpose of investigation. When the investigation officer found to do or do some malpractices, then the superior police officers above the rank of Station House Officer, such as D.S.P./A.S.P., Addl. S.P., S.P., D.I.G., I.G. etc. can always intervene and see that proper steps are taken. 10. Earlier, when a petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed, Courts used to direct the police to arrest the accused. Then the true meaning and scope of Section 41 Cr.P.C. has not been properly understood. Human Right Jurisprudence was pushed behind. Under the pretext of their power of arrest, large scale police atrocities, alleged 'use of minimum force' in arrest stories have began to surface. Courts are also guardians of civil liberties. If not Courts where the people will go for redressal. Now, the Courts have held that they cannot direct the police to arrest a person. But, it would be otherwise, if Non-Bailable Warrant is issued and Court can direct execution of Non-Bailable Warrants under the 1st part of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 11. Arrest should be resorted to lastly when other modes failed. It should be resorted only when it is needed. However, in common (police) practice it has become routine to arrest the accused immediately when a F.I.R. is registered. 12. When this is the position with regard to police power of arrest, it is not proper to empower the police more and more to exercise the draconian power of them. 13. In such circumstances, we refrain from directing the police to arrest the accused. 14. However, police is bound to ensure fair investigation. It should not be one sided. It must be unbiased. Police is bound to infuse confidence in the mind of the complainant that they are conducting the investigation in a fair manner. 15. In the circumstances, the first respondent, namely, the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District is directed to closely oversee the investigation being conducted in Crime No.381 of 2014 by 2nd respondent and ensure that the investigation is conducted in a fair and unbiassed manner at the earliest, it must be completed, in any event, it must be within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order and Final Report shall be filed as per law before the concerned Court. 16. 16. With the above observations and direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of, accordingly.