Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.
Baby Chatterjee, Wife of Arup Chatterjee - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Jharkhand, Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (Cr.) No. 323 of 2022
Decided On : 19-07-2022
The Court held that the arrest of the petitioner's husband, a journalist, was illegal as it was not done in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Sections 80 and 81 Cr.P.C. The Court also held that the police had not followed the guidelines laid down in the judgment of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, and D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416. The Court directed the State to file a counter-affidavit to the main petition and supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner within three weeks. The Court also directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dhanbad to transmit the entire order-sheet of the case to the Court. The Court ordered the release of the petitioner's husband on interim bail on executing a personal bail bond of Rs.50,000/-. The Court directed the jail authority concerned and the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad to comply with the order forthwith.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the wife of a journalist, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the arrest of her husband by the police in the midnight from their bedroom. The petitioner contended that the arrest was illegal as it was not done in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Sections 80 and 81 Cr.P.C. and the guidelines laid down in the judgments of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, and D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the arrest of the petitioner's husband was illegal as it was not done in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Sections 80 and 81 Cr.P.C. The Court also held that the police had not followed the guidelines laid down in the judgment of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, and D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416.
Issues: 1. Whether the arrest of the petitioner's husband was illegal?2. Whether the police had followed the guidelines laid down in the judgments of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, and D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the arrest of the petitioner's husband was illegal as it was not done in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Sections 80 and 81 Cr.P.C. The Court also held that the police had not followed the guidelines laid down in the judgment of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, and D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416. The Court relied on the following principles of law: 1. The arrest of a person is not mandatory and the police officer is required to record the reasons for arrest in writing. 2. The police officer is required to issue a notice to the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, and arrest is not required under Section 41(1) Cr.P.C. 3. The police officer is required to prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness. 4. The arrestee is entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place.
Final Decision: The Court directed the State to file a counter-affidavit to the main petition and supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner within three weeks. The Court also directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dhanbad to transmit the entire order-sheet of the case to the Court. The Court ordered the release of the petitioner's husband on interim bail on executing a personal bail bond of Rs.50,000/-. The Court directed the jail authority concerned and the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad to comply with the order forthwith.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Navin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned A.A.G.-II appearing for the State and Mrs. Ritu Kumar assisted by Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel who appeared suo motu on behalf of the informant-respondent no.7.
2. This petition has been filed for release of one Sri Arup Chatterjee, who happens to be a journalist of news channel namely News 11 Bharat, by the wife of the said journalist on the ground that without following the due process of law in terms of the provisions made under the Cr.P.C., the husband of the petitioner has been arrested by the police in the midnight of 16.07.2022/17.07.2022 at 12:20 a.m. from the apartment where he was residing at Ranchi.
3. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who happens to be wife of the said journalist namely Arup Chatterjee has filed this petition as nobody has been allowed to meet with Arup Chatterjee who is in custody. He submits that even the lawyers tried to contact Arup Chatterjee, but they have not been allowed and that is why this petition has been filed by the petitioner, who happens to be the wife of the said journalist. He further submits that the procedure prescribed under Sections 80 and 81 Cr.P.C has not been followed and Dhanbad police came to Ranchi without intimation to the local police and without following the due procedure prescribed under Sections 80 and 81 of the Cr.P.C. and arrested the husband of the petitioner from the bedroom in midnight. He also submits that in such a way the liberty of a citizen of the country cannot be allowed to be taken even by the police. According to him, the police has not issued any notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C and straightway on the petition filed by the Investigating Officer, the learned court has issued a warrant of arrest and that has been executed in such a way that liberty of the husband of this petitioner has been taken away. To buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2020 2 SCC OnLine 825.
4. Paragraphs 11, 20, 21 to 30, 32, 67 to 73 of the said judgment are quoted herein below:
“19. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465], the purpose of granting bail is set out with great felicity as follows : (SCC pp. 586-88, paras 27-30)
“27. It is not necessary to refer to decisions which deal with the right to ordinary bail because that right does not furnish an exact parallel to the right to anticipatory bail. It is, however, interesting that as long back as in 1924 it was held by the High Court of Calcutta in Nagendra Nath Chakravarti, In re [Nagendra Nath Chakravarti, In re, 1923 SCC OnLine Cal 318 : AIR 1924 Cal 476 : 1924 Cri LJ 732], AIR pp. 479-80 that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial, that the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial and that it is indisputable that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. In two other cases which, significantly, are the “Meerut Conspiracy cases” observations are to be found regarding the right to bail which deserve a special mention. In K.N. Joglekar v. Emperor [K.N. Joglekar v. Emperor, 1931 SCC OnLine All 60 : AIR 1931 All 504 : 1932 Cri LJ 94] it was observed, while dealing with Section 498 which corresponds to the present Section 439 of the Code, that it conferred upon the Sessions Judge or the Hig
The arrest of a person is not mandatory and the police officer is required to record the reasons for arrest in writing.
The arrest of an individual must comply with constitutional and statutory requirements, including providing specific grounds for arrest, which must be communicated in writing to ensure the accused's ....
The judgment establishes that police must justify arrests and follow legal procedures, particularly in non-bailable offenses, to protect individual liberties.
Arrest and detention – No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person – It would be prudent and wise for a Police officer that no arr....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
