22.04.2025 Item No.10 Ct. No. 26 CHC CRLCP 6 of 2024 Shri Pradip Debnath Vs.

Shri Nirupam Mondal, The Officer-in-Charge, Mogra Police Station & Ors.

Mrs. Dipanwita Ganguly, Advocate Ms. Arpita Chakraborty, Advocate …for the applicant/petitioner Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Senior Advocate Mr. Mainak Gupta, Advocate .…for the alleged contemnor no.1 Mr. Pradipta Ganguly, Advocate .…for the alleged contemnor no.2 Mr. Joydeep Roy, Jr. Govt. Advocate Ms. Suveni Banerjee, Advocate ….for the State Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta, Advocate Ms. Rajkumari Priyanka Devi, Advocate ….for the de facto complainant

1. Report submitted on behalf of the State be taken on record.

2. In this Contempt Rule petitioner alleges that, the contemnors violated the directions contained in (2014) 8 Supreme Court Cases 273 (Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Another).

3. Contempt Rule is taken up for final hearing after completion of affidavits.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner refers to the Arnesh Kumar (supra). She submits that, since the First Information Report relates to an offence punishable less than 7 years it was incumbent upon the police authorities to issue notice under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure