Delhi Court Asks Cop To Show Cause Against Departmental Action For Violating 'Satendar Antil' Judgment On Arrest

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought explanation from a Delhi Police cop as to why department inquiry be not initiated against him for failing to issue notice under Section 41A of CrPC before arresting two accused persons, in violation of Supreme Court ruling in Satendar Antil judgment.

Duty MM Divya Lila of Karkardooma Courts said there was a “clear violation” of the ruling wherein notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C or Section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has to be issued for the offences punishable for less than 7 years.

The FIR was registered against Parvez Alam and Javed Alam under Section 333 (house trespass after preparation for assault), 110 (attempt to commit culpable homicide), 115(2) (voluntary causing hurt), 126 (wrongful restraint), 351(2) (criminal intimidation) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The accused submitted that the arrest was made in violation of the Antil ruling as the provisions invoked in the case had punishment of less than seven years.

As the accused sought bail, the complainant, Mohd. Rashid, said that the relief be not granted as they had already tried to kill him.

The court was informed by complainant's counsel that one of the accused persons was denied anticipatory bail by the trial court and the order was upheld by the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court.

While granting bail to the accused persons, the judge observed that no notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C or Section 35(3) of BNSS was issued by the IO to both the accused persons.

The court noted that even the application for issuance of non bailable warrants or for issuance of proclamation filed by the IO did not mention about the issuance of any notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C.

“IO admittedly stated that no notice was issued under Section 41 A Cr.P.C/35(3) BNSS. Since the provisions that have been impleaded upon the accused persons are all punishable with impresonment with 07 years and less, and as per the judgment of Satender Antil, the IO is required to issue the notice under Section 41 A Cr.P.C/35(3) BNSS,” the court said.

It added that there was no reason of arrest mentioned nor there was any reason mentioned for non-issuance of the notice under the provisions in question.

“Therefore, the accused persons are entitled to the bail on the same reasons and IO is required to furnish reason as to why recommendation for the initiation of departmental enquiry shall not be issued per the judgment for violation of the same,” the court ordered.