SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 1453

PATNA HIGH COURT
MR. P. B. BAJANTHRI, MR. S. B. PD. SINGH, JJ
Chhotu Sharma @ Chhotu Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar through Shri Chaitanya Prasad – Respondent
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1610 of 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Kuldeep Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Verma (AAG- 3)

The court emphasized the necessity for police to adhere to procedural safeguards under Cr.P.C. before arrest, ensuring reasoned remand orders to prevent unlawful detention.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 41 and 41A - Contempt proceedings initiated for disobedience of Supreme Court's order concerning unlawful detention - Court emphasizes necessity of compliance with procedural safeguards before arrest, following precedent in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar - The remand order issued by the Judicial Magistrate lacked reasoning and failed to adhere to proper procedures, leading to re-evaluation of police actions and judicial protocols. (Paras 2, 12, 19, 21, 43)

(B) Arrest - Grounds for arrest - It is imperative that police officers justify arrests under Section 41, ensuring necessity and adherence to procedural requirements. (Paras 17, 20, 22)

Facts of the case:
The informant accused the petitioner and others of loan default and subsequent threats. The petitioner contends wrongful detention due to improper remand procedures. (Paras 3-4)

Findings of Court:
The Court found procedural violations in the remand process, highlighting the necessity for reasoned orders from the Magistrates and compliance with directives on arrest protocols. (Paras 24, 43)

Issues: Whether the Judicial Magistrate complied with the procedural requirements for remand and whether the arrest was justified under Section 41 Cr.P.C. (Paras 3, 21)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that remand orders must be reasoned and that compliance with procedural mandates is critical in protecting individual liberties from arbitrary detention. (Paras 24, 43)

Result: The contempt petition is dropped.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. judicial remand process and issues. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. legal standards for arrest under crpc. (Para 10 , 18 , 21)
4. supreme court's guidelines on arrest. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 19 , 22)
5. importance of reasoned judicial orders. (Para 30 , 31 , 32)
6. procedures for police investigations. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
7. conclusion and dismissal of contempt petition. (Para 41 , 43 , 44)

CAV JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH)

Date : 16-05-2025

Heard the parties.

2. The present petition has been filed for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents/contemnors for deliberately and willfully disobeying and not complying the orders passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in illegally detaining the petitioner in judicial custody.

3. As the facts would unveil, the informant, Ruby Kumari registered an F.I.R against Kartik Sharma, Chandeshwari Sharma and petitioner Chhotu Sharma on 03.12.2021 alleging therein that on 10.07.2021, Kartik Kumar Sharma being neighbour of the informant took a loan of Rs. 5,20,000/- for personal need and promised to return the aforesaid amount by September, 2021 and as a security, he issued two cheques bearing Cheque Nos. 507316 and 507317 of the aforesaid amount in favour of the informant. However, when Kartik Sharma did not return the amount on the assigned date, he convened a Panchayti. In the Panchayati, co-accused Kartik Sharma, Chandeshwari Sharma and petitioner Chhotu Sharma assured the informant to return her money by 03.10.2021, else, informant would be free to receive her amount by submitting two cheques issued earlier into her bank account. When the informant did not receive her amount till 03.10.2021, she submitted aforesaid two cheques for its encashment which got bounced on account of insufficient balance in the account of the drawer. The informant, thereafter, served two legal notices on 11.10.2021 and 03.11.2021 respectively upon the accused persons but despite receiving the said notices, they neither returned the amount nor responded of the legal notices. On 24.11.2021, at about 9 O’ clock, all the F.I.R named accused persons including the petitioner came at the house of the informant, dashed and threatened her of dire consequences. Hence, the F.I.R.

4. The said complaint case was sent to the concerned Police Station under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C, on the basis of which, Supaul P.S. Case No. 821 of 2021 was registered against Kartik Sharma, Chandeshwari Sharma and petitioner Chhotu Sharma under Sections 341 , 323, 354, 506, 420, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act .

5. As the narration would unfurl, on 12.02.2022, the Investigating Officer (respondent No. 9) arrested the petitioner along with other accused persons and produced them before learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Supaul (respondent No. 4), who was In-charge, C.J.M on that date.

6. On 12.02.2022, when the accused/writ petitioner were produced for the first time before the Magistrate, the following order was passed which has been brought on record as Annexure-2.

7. From bare perusal of the order dated 12.02.2022, it clearly transpires that learned Magistrate had refused to remand the accused/writ petitioner because neither notices under Section 41 A of the Cr.P.C was served upon the petitioner along with other co-accused person namely Chandeshwari Sharma nor the law laid down under Section 41 (1) Cr.P.C has been complied nor Investigating Officer was present at the time of remand of the accused persons.

8. After refusing to remand the accused persons/writ petitioner, on the next day i.e. 13.02.2022, the Investigating Officer rendered a forwarding letter to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul, requesting him to keep the accused persons in judicial custody for atleast one fortnight. The forwarding letter of the Investigating Officer which has been brought on record as Annexure-3

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top