IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 08.05.2026 PARWINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER ....Petitioners V/s BEANT SINGH AND OTHERS .…Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Brar, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Pardeep K. Bajaj, Advocate Mr. Kuljit Singh, Advocate and Mr. Ankit Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Savreet Brar, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

Ms. Shiny Chopra, A.A.G., Punjab.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

After detailed arguments having been heard, the following order was passed on 02.04.2026:-

“The instant contempt petition, preferred under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “1971 Act”) seeks initiation of contempt proceedings against respondents No.1 to 6 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. It has been averred that respondent No. 4 is the paternal uncle of the petitioner and he, in association with police officials, is after the blood of the petitioner and his family members. Civil litigation is stated to be going on between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 as regards inheritance of ancestral land.

3. It has been averred that in connivance with police officials, respondent No. 4 got the petitioner and his mother falsely implicated in FIR No. 66, dated 05.10.2023 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 447, 379, 506, 427, 511, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”), regarding theft of electric motor from their own agricultural land.

4. 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 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.

5. It has been averred that despite the issuance of the said guidelines, the petitioner and his mother were illegally detained by respondents No.1 to 3 and in this regard, an application (Annexure P-3) had also been moved to the SSP, Faridkot on 10.10.2023. It has been averred that the Duty Magistrate, Faridkot, vide order dated 10.10.2023, held that there had been a violation of the said guidelines and under the circumstances, the petitioner was released from custody.

6. Reply by way of affidavit of ASI Beant Singh, Escort Incharge, Sessions Judge, District Faridkot, on behalf of respondent No.1 was filed, in which no satisfactory reply has been given and only the facts of the FIR have been mentioned.

7. Learned counsel for the parties were heard.

8. 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.

9. Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that there has been no violation or disobedience.

10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

11. Vide order dated 10.10.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot, the petitioner was ordered to be released from custody after declining the request of Police Department;

“6. Police zimnies seen and perused. The statement of Investigating Officer has been recorded, who has stated that notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. has not been served, due to the reason that urgency was involved in this case and the time was less as they want to recover the stolen articles from the accused.

7 Police file perused. Zimnies seen. Perusal of police zimnies reveals that no such urgency has been mentioned in the police zimnies in order to dispense with the service of notice under Se