Delhi High Court: Najmi Waziri, J., observed that “Arrest and incarceration destroys a person and collaterally affects many other innocent relatives. Subsequent release or acquittal of an innocent, is of no solace and offers no reparation to the loss of reputation or for the temporary loss of precious personal liberty.”
High Court had already held R-3 guilty of committing Contempt of Court.
R-3 had arrested the petitioner in breach of directions passed by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, The requisite notice was not served upon the petitioner and there were mere allegations of criminal breach of trust against the petitioner which entailed a maximum sentence of three years, and it did not warrant the arrest of a person in the manner in which it was done.
The highhandedness of the police officer, in specific breach of the Supreme Court’s directions, was evident.
Further, it was stated that the decision of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar,(2014) 8 SCC 273 holds that in the event of non-service of notice under Section 41A of the CrPC, contempt proceedings would be initiated.
The Constitution of India ensures the right to personal liberty of the petitioner. The said right can only be curtained by a procedure prescribed established by law.
In the decision referred, it has been said that notice under Section 41A CrPC is requisite.
In the present matter, notice was not sent served and the law was breached.
Bench added that the petitioner is not the only one who suffered the humiliation and the indignity of being arrested; the ordeal would have affected the reputation of his family i.e. his children, wife and parents. No amount of explanation to the neighbours or those who may have seen the arrest, would undo the embarrassment and indignity suffered by the petitioner and his relatives.
High Court expressed that,
Arrest and incarceration destroys a person and collaterally affects many other innocent relatives. Subsequent release or acquittal of an innocent, is of no solace and offers no reparation to the loss of reputation or for the temporary loss of precious personal liberty.
Later, R-3 filed an affidavit tendering his unqualified/unreserved apology for arresting the petitioner. The said apology was a matter of last resort, therefore it cannot be accepted.
“…petitioner has suffered incarceration for 11 days and presently he is out on bail.”
As R-3 was a serving police officer with Delhi Police and had served for 7 years and also has a long career ahead of him, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 1 day alongwith a fine of Rs 2,000 as well as nominal costs of Rs 15,000.
The aforesaid sentence shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two months from receipt of the order, so as to accord R-3 sufficient opportunity to assail this order, should he so choose to.
[Rakesh Kumar v. Vijayanta Arya (DCP), 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5574, decided on 7-12-2021]
Advocates before the Court:
For the petitioner:
Mr Ajay Kumar Pipania, Mr Aaksh Sethi, Ms Madhurima Soni, Mr Aditya Sharma, Mr Parcco Puniyani, Ms Nikita Garg, Mr Imtiaz Hussain and Mr Lakshay, Advocate.
For the respondents:
Mr. Shadan Farasat, ASC (GNCTD) with Mr Bharat Gupta along with S.I. Kuldeep.
