In a significant judgment, the Jharkhand High Court found two police officials guilty of criminal contempt for unlawfully arresting two employees of Instakart, a logistics arm within the Flipkart Group. The arrests were made in violation of the Supreme Court's guidelines established in the landmark case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), which mandates specific procedures to safeguard personal liberty during arrests.
Background of the Case
The case originated from allegations against two Instakart employees accused of attempting to fraudulently deliver products to a complainant who denied placing the order. The employees were arrested without prior notice under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which requires the issuance of a notice before arrest for offenses punishable with imprisonment up to seven years. The arrested individuals were detained from February 28, 2024, until March 16, 2024, when they were granted bail.
High Court's Observations
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan scrutinized the actions of the police officials involved. The Court emphasized that personal liberty is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India, and any deprivation of this liberty must adhere strictly to legal procedures.
The Court noted that the police officials failed to comply with the procedural requirements outlined in Section 41-A CrPC. Specifically, they did not issue a notice of appearance to the accused before making the arrests, nor did they record any reasons for the necessity of immediate arrest, as mandated by law. The Court found this non-compliance to be a blatant disregard for the guidelines established in the Arnesh Kumar judgment, which aims to prevent unnecessary arrests and protect individual freedoms.
Critique of Police Justifications
The police officials attempted to justify the arrests by alleging that the insistence of the Instakart employees on obtaining an OTP (One-Time Password) from the complainant for delivering products indicated potential cybercriminal activity. The Court dismissed this justification as "ridiculous," stating that such a standard procedure in e-commerce deliveries could not reasonably lead to suspicions warranting arrest. The Court underscored that the arrests, made within the precincts of the police station without proper justification, demonstrated a lack of application of mind and an arbitrary exercise of power by the police officials.
Violation of Supreme Court Guidelines
The Court reiterated the importance of adhering to the Supreme Court's guidelines in the Arnesh Kumar case, which require police officers to:
Issue a notice of appearance before arrest for offenses punishable with imprisonment up to seven years.
Record reasons in writing for the necessity of arrest if it is deemed required.
Ensure that arrests are not made in a routine, mechanical manner without proper justification.
In this case, the police officials used pre-printed checklists to justify the arrests, without demonstrating any individualized assessment or application of mind. The Court found this practice to be in direct violation of the procedural safeguards intended to protect personal liberty.
Court's Verdict and Sentencing
Concluding that the police officials acted in brazen violation of established legal procedures and constitutional rights, the Jharkhand High Court held them guilty of criminal contempt. The Court sentenced each officer to one month of simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹2,000. Additionally, the Court directed the State of Jharkhand to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the errant officers, to be concluded within six months.
The Court also awarded compensation to the wrongfully arrested employees, ordering the police officials to pay ₹50,000 to each petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioners were granted the liberty to pursue additional legal remedies to claim further compensation for the wrongful arrests and the consequent violation of their fundamental rights.
Implications of the Judgment
This judgment serves as a stern reminder to law enforcement agencies about the imperative of adhering to legal procedures designed to protect individual liberties. The High Court's decision underscores that any deviation from established arrest protocols, especially those outlined by the Supreme Court, will attract serious consequences, including contempt proceedings and personal liability for the officers involved.
The ruling also highlights the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rule of law and protecting citizens from arbitrary actions by authorities. By holding the police officials accountable, the Court reinforces the principle that personal liberty cannot be curtailed without strict adherence to due process.
Conclusion
The Jharkhand High Court's judgment in this case reaffirms the constitutional safeguards surrounding personal liberty and the necessity for law enforcement to operate within the bounds of the law. The decision not only provides justice to the wrongfully arrested individuals but also sets a precedent aimed at deterring future violations of legal procedures by police officials. It emphasizes that the arbitrary exercise of power, especially in matters involving personal freedom, will be met with stringent judicial scrutiny and appropriate sanctions.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.