IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 22.01.2026 Pronounced on: 01.04.2026 Uploaded on: 02.04.2026 Sunil ....Petitioner V/s Ms. Kala Ramachandran and another .…Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Argued by: Mr. Rajesh Khandelwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Shashank Bhandari, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. Anuj Garg, DAG, Haryana.

*****

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

The instant contempt petition, preferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “1971 Act”) alleges 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.

2. In the instant case, FIR No.5, dated 13.01.2023 (Annexure P-5) was registered at Police Station Cyber Manesar, District Gurugram, under Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short “the IT Act”) and under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”). The said FIR was registered on a complaint of one Priyanka Singh alleging that certain unknown persons had committed fraud with her.

3. It was claimed that the petitioner had illegally been arrested on 17.02.2023 along with two other persons from Pahuja Bakers and Fast Food Shop, Red Square Market, Hisar. It has been averred that the offences under Section 66(D) of IT Act and Section 420 IPC are not punishable with imprisonment of more than 7 years and, therefore, the illegal arrest of the petitioner would be violative of the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).

4. It has further been averred that an application seeking regular bail was moved by the petitioner before the High Court after the dismissal of the same from the Court of Sessions.

5. The case, therefore, which has been set up is that the directions issued by the Apex Court have been violated.

6. By way of compliance affidavit of Ms. Kala Ramachandran, Commissioner of Police, Gurugram, it has been averred that the FIR was registered on the complaint of one Priyanka Singh, alleging that certain unknown persons had committed fraud with her by using electronic means and as a consequence thereof, a sum of Rs.13.30 lakhs had been duped from her. It has been averred that the petitioner was arrested on 17.02.2023, consequent upon the receipt of appropriate incriminating evidence against him and was in judicial custody since then. The application for regular bail was dismissed by the Court of Sessions on 09.03.2023 and was, therefore, pending in the High Court.

7. Details of investigation and disclosure statements, etc., suffered by the petitioner have been given, which are not relevant for the purpose of decision of the instant contempt petition. It has also been averred that the petitioner was found involved in two other cases of similar nature, as regards which, FIR No.57, dated 20.11.2022 at Police Station Cyber Crime, OND, Bawana, Delhi and FIR No.72 of 2023 at Police Station Special Cell, New Delhi, both under Section 420 IPC were registered.

8. It has been averred that the contention of the petitioner that there had been willful disobedience of the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar is misconceived and factually incorrect and that the petitioner was duly served notices under Section 41 Cr.P.C and the checklist had duly been prepared. It has also been averred that the petitioner was joined in investigation and was thereafter arrested. It has been averred that the checklist was also put up before the Area Magistrate when the police custody was sought. Another compliance affidavit of Sh. Naresh Kumar, SHO, Police Station Cyber Crime, Manesar, respondent No. 2 has been filed on similar lines.

9. Learn