'Should've Been Ashamed': J&K HC Issues Contempt Notice Against Cop For Violating SC Guidelines, Arresting 69-Yr-Old 8 Months After FIR
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has come down heavily on a police officer for violating the directions laid down by the Supreme Court in the landmark judgement of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2014, on guidelines for arrest.
The court initiated contempt of court proceedings against him for unauthorised arrest in a case involving minor offences, where a 69-Year-Old man had been accused.
The Court found that the respondent police officer arrested the petitioner eight months after registration of the FIR, without complying with the mandatory requirements of Section 41 and 41A CrPC as interpreted in Arnesh Kumar.
A bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul observed that court orders must be followed "word by word and letter by letter," adding that government officers cannot act based on whims and caprices.
The court rebuked the respondent officer stating that "he should have been ashamed" by the written objections filed by him where he remarked that “that if the judgment of the Hon'ble court is to be followed in strict sense then almost all the officers of the state would be held liable under clause 11.5 of the judgment.”
The court said "It reflects and suggests the approach of the department towards the courts and the orders of the Courts."
It added that "respondent is held guilty of non-compliance of the directions contained in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and others... and, therefore, has committed the contempt of the Court."
The court outlined that under Section 41A CrPC, where arrest is not necessary, the police officer must serve a notice of appearance rather than effecting arrest. However, no such procedure was followed here. The accused, arrested after eight months, was neither served a 41A notice nor was his arrest justified with recorded reasons.
The Court noted that Arnesh Kumar had made it mandatory for police officers to use a checklist under Section 41(1)(b)(ii), furnish it to the Magistrate, and avoid routine arrests. These safeguards were ignored in the present case.
The court ordered the department to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent officer and also directed the officer to personally appear and explain why he should not be punished for contempt.
“Respondent is also liable to pay compensation. The amount of compensation to be paid... shall be decided and directed on the next date of hearing," it added.
APPEARANCE:
Mr. P. N. Raina, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J. A. Hamal, Advocate for Petitioners
Mr. P. D. Singh, Dy.AG Mr. Vishal Kapoor, Advocate FOR Respondent.
Case-Title: Iqbal Singh vs Pankaj Sharma, 2025