Allahabad HC Issues Contempt Notice To Judicial Magistrate, IO Over 'Violation' Of 'Arnesh Kumar' Guidelines On Arrest & Remand

A Bench of Justice Rajeev Singh issued a contempt notice (to the Judicial officer and the IO) on the ground that the Police Officer concerned took two persons into custody 'without any ram or reason'.

Further, the Magistrate concerned accepted the remand without examining the reasons given in the case diary and without recording any satisfaction.

For context, as per the Arnesh Kumar judgment, the arrest should be the exception where the offence is punishable with less than seven years imprisonment. In such cases, a notice of appearance under Section 41A CrPC should be served on the accused instead of being arrested by the IO. The arrest can be made in exceptional circumstances, but the reasons must be recorded in writing.

Further, the Judgment also makes it mandatory for the magistrates, while authorising detention of the accused, to peruse the report furnished by the police officer in the terms aforesaid and only after recording their satisfaction to authorise detention.

In the case at hand, there was a property dispute among the applicants and other members of the same family tree. On June 23, 2024, at 8:00 AM, the uncle (Shiv Kumar) of the applicants was allegedly attacked by five persons with lathis, dandas, and farsas while visiting his farm.

Hearing the alarm raised by the uncle, the applicants and other family members arrived to help him, but they were also attacked. During the fight, Applicant No.1 and Shiv Kumar sustained injuries, and Applicant No.2 also suffered a head injury.

After that, Shiv Kumar filed a complaint, which led to the registration of an FIR under various sections of the IPC. On the same day, one of the alleged attackers also filed an FIR (cross FIR) under multiple sections of the IPC.

Pursuant to this, the applicants were taken into custody without a reason, and they were also produced before the Remand Magistrate, who accepted their remand.

Challenging their arrest and remand, they moved the HC, wherein their counsel argued that the arrest and remand were in utter violation of the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar.

It was further contended that in the Arnesh Kumar case, it was provided that any failure to comply with the directions of the case shall, apart from rendering the police officials concerned liable for departmental action, also be liable to be punished for contempt of Court to be instituted before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

It was also submitted that since the Remand Magistrate also failed to examine the reasons given in the case diary and without recording any reason, the remand was accepted, and the applicants were sent to judicial custody, which also violated the Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

Given this, noting that the police himself recorded that applicant no.2 was having a head injury and the police officer failed to comply with the law laid down in the Arnesh Kumar case, the Court issued contempt notices to the respondents to show cause, as to why, they should not be punished for wilful disobedience of the directions of this Court, returnable within two weeks, failing which, the charges may be framed after summoning the contemnors.

The matter will now be heard next on September 13.

Case title - Ashutosh Singh And Another vs. Ankita Singh-Ii, Incharge Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 21 Sultanpur And Another