The court emphasizes the importance of protecting the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. The court also highlights the need for proper investigation procedures and the consequences of violating these procedures.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner claims to be a freelance journalist and a whistleblower, who runs two vernacular newspapers and YouTube channels. It is the contention of the petitioner that due to his exposure of corruption in political quarters, he has earned the wrath of the ruling party and has been constantly subjected to threats. The cause of action of the present writ petition arose when the petitioner was allegedly picked up around 7.30-7.45 p.m. on October 17, 2019 without any prior notice, by the Officer-in-Charge of the Khardah Police Station, along with hoodlums of the local ruling party, and was subjected to tremendous torture within the precincts of the Khardah Police Station and mercilessly beaten up the petitioner against all established norms of human rights. Ultimately, the petitioner was taken into custody by the Purulia District Cyber Crime Police Station at around 4.30 a.m. and purportedly arrested in connection with Purulia District Cyber Crime Police Station Case No. 2 of 2019 dated September 23, 2019 under Sections 465/469/500/504/505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”), read with Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the IT Act”).

2. During interrogation, the petitioner was allegedly asked to admit that he had manipulated and manufactured documents, including some forged appointment letter issued by the West Bengal Board of Primary Education. The Inspector-in-Charge of the Khardah Police Station, it is alleged, took the lead role in perpetrating torture upon the petitioner, which will easily be revealed from the CCTV footage of the Khardah Police Station of the relevant date.

3. Although the petitioner was produced ultimately before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia on October 18, 2019, the bail application of the petitioner was rejected and October 20, 2019 was fixed as the date for production of the petitioner. On the latter date, the Chief Judicial Magistrate granted bail to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he had to be admitted to a hospital under acute mental and physical condition after his release on bail and had to be treated in the hospital till November 3, 2019.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the sections under which the petitioner was allegedly booked were either non-cognizable or bailable or both, in which case the police cannot initiate investigation on their own, without an order of the competent Magistrate. Most of the charges were also unrelated to the acts alleged to have been done by the petitioner.

5. It is next argued that no notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the CrPC”) was issued by the Khardah police station, whereas a notice under the said provision had been served upon the petitioner by the Nandigram Police Station for a similar case against the petitioner.

6. By placing reliance upon the judgment of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, reported at (2014) 8 SCC 273, it is submitted that the said judgment stipulated inter alia that a notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of the CrPC has to be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for reasons to be recorded in writing, in case of offences having punishment of less than seven years of imprisonment. Moreover, it was held that failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall, apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court, to be instituted before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

7. It was further held that authorizing detention without recording reasons by the Judicial Magistrate shall also be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court. It was further added that the directions given therein shall no