IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI &

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

TH WEDNESDAY, THE 25 DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1947 CON.CASE(C) NO. 1080 OF 2025 CRIME NO.278/2025 OF Nedumangad Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram (ARISING FROM JUDGMENT DATED 27.07.2022 IN Con.Case(C)

NO.808 OF 2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA)

PETITIONER:

SHAILA BEEGUM A AGED 50 YEARS W/O LATE MR. HARSHAD, 'BYTHANNOOR', KARINKADA, CHULLIMANOOR, NEDUMANGAD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695541 BY ADVS.

SHRI.R.S.LAKSHMAN SMT.SUDAKSHINA MENA PRASAD SHRI.NIRANJAN M.S.

SMT.AGRAJHA S.A.

RESPONDENT:

SANTHOSH KUMAR J AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O JAYADEVAN, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN NEDUMANGAD PS CRIME NO. 278/2025 NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION, NEDUMANGAD P O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695541.

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.05.2025, THE COURT ON 25.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present contempt petition has been filed under Sections

11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, for having illegally arrested the petitioner, a widow, in violation of the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in clear violation of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v.

State of Bihar and another [(2014) 8 SCC 273].

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has been arrayed as the accused in Crime No.278 of 2025, registered at Nedumangad Police Station on the basis of a complaint by one Mr.Sakkeer Hussain, alleging offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The allegations levelled against the petitioner are cheating and breach of trust in connection with a property transaction. According to the petitioner, the complaint arises from a purely civil dispute. Earlier the complainant had lodged a similar complaint at Kattakada Police Station wherein Crime No.336 of 2025 was registered. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in that case, by the learned Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram vide order dated 15.03.2025 in Crl.M.C No.752 of 2025 (Annexure II). When the petitioner came to know about the registration of the present Crime No.278 of 2025, she moved a fresh anticipatory bail application before the same court which was subsequently disposed of as having rendered infructuous since the petitioner was unlawfully arrested.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the arrest was fully illegal and in complete disregard to the mandatory directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Arnesh Kumar (supra), pertaining to cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment less than or extending upto seven years, arrest was made without reasons necessitating the same and without issuing mandatory notice of appearance under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and other conditions laid down in Arnesh Kumar (supra). The petitioner submits that her fundamental rights have been infringed. She had also made a complaint to the Home Department, State of Kerala and to the State Police Chief but no action whatsoever has been taken. In the circumstances, she is constrained to approach this Court seeking initiation of proceedings for contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the binding judicial precedents as well as violation of personal liberty, in a high-handed and illegal manner. It is also submitted that a separate writ petition is being preferred by the petitioner in respect of the same.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that, as per Arnesh Kumar (supra), there is a binding direction to ensure that police officers do not arrest unnecessarily and Magistrates do not authorise detention casually and mechanically.

5. In Arnesh Kumar’s c