Kerala High Court Finds Prima Facie Contempt On Part Of Police Officer For Arresting Person In Violation Of Arnesh Kumar Guidelines
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday took the prima facie view that a police officer had committed contempt of court in arresting a person in violation of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr. [AIR 2014 SC 2756]. The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas thereby directed the respondent police officer to...
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday took the prima facie view that a police officer had committed contempt of court in arresting a person in violation of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr. [AIR 2014 SC 2756].
The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas thereby directed the respondent police officer to appear before it on the next date of posting.
The petitioner in the case had been accused of committing criminal breach of trust along with another. It was alleged that the petitioner had agreed to pay certain amount as rent for the de facto complainant's vehicle, but had not paid the same, nor had they returned the vehicle to the complainant. It was averred that when the 1st accused person had been arrested and produced before the Magistrate, he had been granted bail and the vehicle was also recovered from him.
The petitioner submitted that since the entire transaction was civil in nature, there was no necessity for arresting him. He however added that while the anticipatory bail application filed by him was pending before the Court, the respondent along with three other police officers arrested him. The petitioner stated that the respondent had effected the arrest in spite of the petitioner informing him about the anticipatory bail application.
The petitioner added that he had informed the respondent that he had undergone a surgery and had been advised to take rest following the same.
It was averred that when the petitioner was taken for medical examination by the officials, the doctor advised him for immediate medical attention, yet the respondent took the petitioner to the police station instead.
Apart from submitting that he had no involvement in the present crime, the petitioner added that the de facto complainant purposely made the petitioner as an accused in the complaint since the latter had knowledge about the illegal transactions of the de facto complainant.
It is the submission of the petitioner that the respondent had arrested him in violation of the Supreme Court guidelines in Arnesh Kumar (Supra). In the said case, the Apex Court had categorically laid down that notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. is a prerequisite for arresting an accused in cases where offences punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than 7 years or which may extend to 7 years whether with or without fine.
"The guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar's case has to be scrupulously followed by the police. Any deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously, since it has a direct implication upon the personal liberty of an individual enshrined under Article 2l of the Constitution of India. When an illegality has been committed by a police officer, who is more responsible to give due respect to the law for the time being in force and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Hon'ble Court, strict action has to follow for such noncompliance of the same," the plea stated.
The Court has posted the matter for further consideration on June 26, 2023.
The petitioner is represented by Advocates Anand Kalyanakrishnan and C. Dheeraj Rajan.
Case Title: Vinod Mohan v. Belraj