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 Smt. Neelam Kumari ....Petitioner V/s Sh. Sartaj Singh Chahal and another .…Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Argued by: Mr. Manjinder Singh Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Amtiaz Sandhu, AAG, Punjab and Ms. Shiny Chopra, AAG, Punjab *****

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

The instant contempt petition, preferred under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “1971 Act”) seeks initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for willful disobedience of the directions issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar V/s State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and the notification dated 22.09.2023 (Annexure P-2) issued by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

2. The case set up is that FIR No.90 dated 28.09.2023 (Annexure P-1) was registered at Police Station Chabbewal, District Hoshiarpur, on the statement of one Jasvir Singh (respondent No.2) under Sections 153A, 295A, 505 IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short “the IT Act”) against the husband of the present petitioner. The allegation in the FIR was that the husband of the petitioner uploaded a video on his facebook account with instigating comments against a specific religion and issued threats against Delhi 1984 riots. The husband of the petitioner was arrested by the police on the same day i.e. 28.09.2023.

3. It has been averred that specific guidelines dated 22.09.2023 (Annexure P-2) have been issued by the High Court as regards arrest in view of the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar V/s State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and further reiterated in the case of Mohd. Asfak Alam V/s The State of Jharkhand and another, (2023) 10 SCALE 370. It has been averred that since all offences alleged to have been committed, for which the FIR in question was registered, were punishable with 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.”). However, the petitioner alleges that her husband was arrested without any such notice having been issued.

4. It has been averred that the Duty Magistrate concerned too, vide order dated 29.09.2023 granted 14 days judicial remand of the husband of the petitioner in violation of the guidelines issued by this Court. The bail application filed by the husband of the petitioner was also dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class vide order dated 03.10.2023.

5. Short reply by way of affidavit of Sh. Surendra Lamba, Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, on behalf of respondent No.1 was filed in which, it was stated that there are as many as 17 other FIRs registered against the husband of the petitioner namely Jatinder Kumar Chagran @ J.K. Chagran, details of which have been given in para No.4 of the reply. It was further averred that since the matter was sensitive and related to a specific religion, in order to maintain law and order and to further prevent the spreading of the video, the husband of the petitioner was arrested and presented before the Court of JMIC, Hoshiarpur on 29.09.2023.

A check list dated 29.09.2023 was prepared.

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)

and the subsequent guidelines issued by this Court.

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

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