JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

The instant contempt petition, preferred under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “1971 Act”) read with Section 215 of the Constitution of India seeks initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for willful disobedience of the directions issued by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Arnesh Kumar V/s State of Bihar and another (2014) 8 SCC 273 and the order dated 11.07.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Apex Court in Civil Misc. Application No.1849 of 2021 in SLP(Crl.)-5191-2021, titled as Satender Kumar Antil V/s CBI and another, reiterated in the case of Mohd. Asfak Alam V/s The State of Jharkhand and another, (2023) 10 SCALE 370.

2. The case set up is that FIR No.113 dated 31.03.2025 (Annexure P-8) was registered at Police Station Murthal, District Sonipat, under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short “the Arms Act”) and Sections 190, 191(3), 308(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “the BNS”) against the petitioner and two others on the statement of one Sandeep Malik. The allegations were that the petitioner along with 10/12 boys armed with weapons, batons and iron rods, came to the office of Zelkova Buildcom Pvt. Ltd., Asadpur District Sonipat and extended threats to the employees of Zelkova Buildcom and stopped their work and committed the offence of extortion.

3. It has been averred that as regards arrest, specific directions have been issued by the Apex Court in the case of in the case of Arnesh Kumar V/s State of Bihar and another (2014) 8 SCC 273 later reiterated in the case of Mohd. Asfak Alam V/s The State of Jharkhand and another, (2023) 10 SCALE 370. 4. It has been averred that since all offences alleged to have been committed, for which the FIR in question was registered, were punishable with an imprisonment of less than 7 years, it was mandatory for the respondents to issue a notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) (Section 35(3) BNS). However, the petitioner was arrested on the same day i.e. 31.03.2025 without any such notice having been issued.

4. It has been averred that the Duty Magistrate, concerned too, vide order dated 01.04.2025 granted judicial remand of the petitioner in violation of the directions issued by the Apex Court. However, the petitioner was later granted bail.

5. Reply/compliance report by way of an affidavit of Ms. Prabina P., Deputy Commissioner of Police, East, Sonipat was filed in which, it has been stated that there are as many as 4 other FIRs registered against the petitioner. It has been further averred that there are also other cases registered against the co-accused, details of which have been given in para No.18 of the reply. It has been averred that punishment for the commission of offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act is more than 7 years. It has been averred that after the arrest of the petitioner, he was granted bail and thereafter, he again committed a similar offence on 08.04.2025 and 09.04.2025 and a DD No.70 dated 28.04.2025 was registered.

6. Learned counsel for the parties were heard.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case of clear cut violation and willful disobedience of the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar and Mohd. Asfak Alam (supra).

8. Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that there has been no violation or disobedience.

9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

10. In the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court of India issued the following directions :-

“13. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction:

(1) All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically