Hyderabad: Justice M.S. Rama-chandra Rao of Telangana High Court has sentenced a police sub-inspector to four weeks’ imprisonment for arresting a person without issuing any notice under Section 41-A of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C), thereby violating guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court on arrests.

The court also directed the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, and Principal Secretary (Home) Department to initiate disciplinary action against the sub-inspector.

Justice Ramach-andra Rao was dealing with a contempt petition by Ramadugu Omkar Varma, a stationary shop owner of Borabanda. Varma alleged in his petition that Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar police sub-inspector Ashok Naik made him sit for a full one day in the police station without following rules framed under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. He was then arrested for offences, none of them punishable up to seven years.

Mentioning the guidelines laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar when arresting a person, the petitioner sought that the court punish the SI for wilful disobedience of the apex court’s orders.

Ramadugu Omkar Varma submitted that he was taken to the police station June 25, 2019 and remanded to judicial custody on June 27, 2019, at 11 a.m. by the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyder-abad, after he was produced before the court. He submitted that he had also informed the magistrate about Section 41-A not being followed by the police.

The petitioner further alleged that the said magistrate returned the remand case diary and thereafter the S. I. antedated a notice and pasted it on his house.

However, the police submitted that a family had filed a cheating complaint against the petitioner saying he had taken money under the pretext of digging out hidden treasures from the complainant’s house. The police also submitted that the petitioner was a habitual offender who deceived innocent people.

It was thus imminent to arrest him, so that he does not deceive others. After going through the complaint against the petitioner, an FIR was registered against him.

The High Court observed that prima facie, the complaint against the petitioner was vague.

As there was no evidence of any amount being paid to the petitioner by the complainant, the court felt that it was not necessary to arrest the petitioner. Moreover, the court found that the SI had failed to follow the rules in arresting a person.

Under these circumstances, the court allowed the contempt case and sentenced the SI to undergo four weeks of imprisonment. However, it suspended the sentence for six weeks to provide time to the S. I. for filing an appeal.

The Supreme Court has held that in all cases, where the arrest of a person is not required under Section 41(1) Cr.P.C., the police officer is required to issue a notice directing the accused to appear before him at a specified place and time. The law obliges such an accused to appear before the police officer.