Bibek Chaudhuri, J. – Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners as well as learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to explain, as to why the petitioner no. 1 was arrested in flagrant violation of the mandate of law, enshrined under Section 41 and Section 41(A) of the Cr.P.C. and also for a direction upon the Investigating Officer for flouting the law involved in the subject with brazen proclivity in support of his superior officials with a coordinate prayer directing the respondents to pay compensation for wrongful arrest of the petitioner.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that in the Chiksaura P.S. Case No. 89 of 2016, registered under Sections 341/504/506/354(B) of the I.P.C. and Section 3(i) (iii) (vi) (x) (xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1995. After registration of the said case, Police issued notice upon petitioner no. 1 namely Pappu Singh @ Shivendra Bahadur under Section 41(A) of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner no. 1 duly complied with the said provision attending the local Police Station. The Investigating Officer interrogated him and he was released by the Police. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer made an application on 07.02.2017, praying for Police remand against the petitioner no. 1 stating, inter alia, that the petitioner is the prime accused in connection with Chiksaura P.S. Case No. 89 of 2016; against him ample materials had been collected; he had been fleeing here and there to evade arrest. Subsequently, he was arrested following the prevaling law and he should be remanded to judicial custody.

4. In course of hearing of the instant writ petition, a Coordinate Bench passed an order dated 24th July, 2023 allowing the petitioner to add the concerned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Hilsa, namely Vishwa Vibhuti Gupta, respondent no. 10 who passed the order of remand. The respondent no. 10 was directed to file his show cause within one week as to why contempt proceeding be not initiated against him for violating the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.

5. Before dealing with the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the petitioners, let me record that Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of respondent no. 10, at the outset submits that the Investigating Officer of this case is facing departmental proceeding as per the order of this Court and no further order is warranted against the said Police Officer/Investigating Officer.

6. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that after registration of Chiksaura P.S. Case No. 89 of 2016 on 17th August, 2016, the petitioner was issued a notice under Section 41(A) of the Cr.P.C. following the direction of Arnesh Kumar (supra) to the petitioner no. 1 for his appearance in the Police Station. The petitioner no. 1 duly appeared before the Investigating Officer. He was also interrogated and at that point of time Police Officer did not find any reason or ground to arrest the petitioner. On 28th September, 2016, both petitioner no.1 and petitioner no. 2 submitted an undertaking incorporating the terms and conditions for their appearance and thereafter they were released on bond by the Police Officer. Subsequently, on 7th February, 2017, the petitioner no. 1 was arrested in violation of his previous release on bond, without recalling the release order. As directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra), the Police Officer did not submit any report/check list containing specified Sub-clauses under Sections 41 (1) (b) (ii) of the Cr.P.C. Such check list was not placed before the learned Magistrate for his judicial consideration as to whether the materials in support of the check list justified recalling of the release bond with an order of arrest to be passed by the learned Magistrate. The learne