Jharkhand HC Sentences Cops For Unlawful Arrest Of Flipkart Employees Over Alleged OTP Misuse, Says Arnesh Kumar Guidelines Were Ignored

Recently, the Jharkhand High Court has charged two police officers with criminal contempt for unlawfully arresting two Instakart employees, in agency which acts as a logistics arm within the Flipkart Group of Companies, in violation of Supreme Court guidelines set out in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan observed, “There is a brazen disregard/violation of the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar by Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3.”

The court held that the officers failed to comply with Section 41-A of the CrPC, which mandates the issuance of a notice before arrest for offenses punishable with imprisonment up to seven years.

The Court further noted, “Personal liberty is an important fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India and unless there is an absolute necessity for arrest, personal liberty cannot be taken away in this arbitrary manner as was done by Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3.”

The case pertained to allegations of fraud involving OTP misuse and delivery of goods through Myntra. The petitioners, employees of Instakart, were accused of attempting to fraudulently deliver items to a complainant who denied placing the order. Despite the minor nature of the accusations, the petitioners were arrested without proper justification.

The court pointed out, “The alleged insistence by petitioners and the co-accused to the complainant for an OTP from the complainant to deliver certain products from Myntra Company by itself cannot be a justification for the arrest, that too within the precincts of the police station, and for suspecting them to be cyber criminals. This defence of the Opposite party no.3 is ridiculous and cannot be accepted.”

The court criticized the use of pre-printed checklists to justify the arrests, stating, “The check-list containing the specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii) has to be filled up by applying mind and such reasons need to be recorded in writing. This was not done in the instant case by Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3.”

The court while drawing attention to the failure of the officers to adhere to the procedural safeguards referred to the Apex Court's decision in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022, which mandates compliance with Sections 41 and 41-A CrPC.

The Apex Court had reiterated that, “liberty is one of the most essential requirements of the modern man and that, innocence of a person accused of an offence is presumed through a legal fiction, placing the onus on the prosecution to prove the guilt before the Court.”

The Court sentenced the Officer In-Charge and the Investigating Officer to one month's simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹2,000 each. The sentence was suspended for four weeks to allow the officers to approach the Supreme Court.

It also directed the State to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the officials within six months and awarded ₹50,000 in costs to each petitioner, to be borne equally by the guilty officers.

Acknowledging the unlawful arrests impact on the petitioners, the court awarded, "costs of Rs.50,000/- each to be paid by respondent Nos.2 and 3 equally."

The Court left it open to the petitioners to avail other remedies available in law for claiming compensation for wrongful arrest by the officials.

Case Name: Irshad and Anr v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 195

Click here to download the judgement