9-June-2022

Violation of Arnesh Kumar guidelines: Telangana High Court holds four police officials guilty of contempt of court

The Telangana state supreme court on weekday sentenced four police officers, as well as one Indian Police Service (IPS) officer, to four weeks imprisonment for contempt of court Justice G Radha blue blood passed the order on finding that; the officials were in willful disobedience of the Supreme Court’s judgment within; the case of Arnesh Kumar v. the State Of Bihar.

“The directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court (in Arnesh Kumar) are binding and should be obeyed by; all involved in a strict sense”, the single-judge stated. it absolutely was a control that; the contemnors desecrated the highest court’s pointers for issuance of a notice of appearance, in terms of Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), to the defendant at intervals period from the date of establishment of the case.

“Violations, that are doubtless to infringe upon; the religion of the general public in the administration of justice additionally the} court system should be; punished, to forestall a repetition of such behavior and the; adverse impact on public faith,” the state supreme court underscored. It also directed that; the Commissioner of Police and State of Telangana initiate disciplinary action against the contemnors for violating the rules in Arnesh Kumar.

The petitioner stirred the state supreme court alleging that; the police had issued a glance Out Circular (LOC) and wanted Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) against the petitioners while not issuing a notice beneath Section 41A of the CrPC and this deep-rooted willful violation of the law declared by the Supreme Court. it absolutely their competition that; during a case with reference to the offence of cruelty and offense under; the gift Prohibition Act, the malafide LOC and incorrectly procured NBWs resulted within; the petitioner being subjected to acute humiliation in their; social circles. it absolutely additionally submitted that; the contemnors were robbing the petitioners of their; dignity associated their personal liberty and their; freedom to go to their birth country was curtailed.

Therefore, the petitioner urged the court to carry the police liable so as to discourage errant police officers who didn’t confer to the rules. On examining the submissions, Justice Radha’s blue blood found the contemnors guilty since issuing a LOC or NBW, with no notice or giving the petitioners a chance to prove their bonafides were in violation of the guidelines of the Supreme Court.

With this, all four respondents sentenced to four weeks imprisonment with; a fine of ₹2,000 each.

However, the sentence suspended for 6 weeks to modify them to file an appeal. Senior Advocate Diljit Singh Ahluvalia at the side of advocate Mogili Anaveni appeared for; the petitioner whereas the respondents delineated by advocate Shyam S Agarwal.

Read more blogs and news@advocatetanwar.com

Disclaimer

The following disclaimer governs the use of this website (“Website”) and the services provided by the Law offices of Kr. Vivek Tanwar Advocate & Associates in accordance with the laws of India. By accessing or using this Website, you acknowledge and agree to the terms and conditions stated in this disclaimer.

The information provided on this Website is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice or relied upon as such. The content of this Website is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Firm. Any reliance on the information provided on this Website is done at your own risk.

The Law Firm makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information contained on this Website.

The Law Firm disclaims all liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this Website or for any actions taken in reliance on the information provided herein. The information contained in this website, should not be construed as an act of solicitation of work or advertisement in any manner.