The Allahabad High Court has pulled up Prayagraj police officials over the arrest and delayed release of a man in an Arms Act case, observing that their conduct amounted to contempt of the apex court’s directions governing arrests in offences punishable with up to seven years.
A Division Bench of Justices Siddharth and Jai Krishna Upadhyay directed the initiation of action against erring police officials while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Sachin Arya, alias Sachin Bhartiya, challenging his arrest and detention by the Prayagraj police.
In its order passed on February 12, the Justice Siddharth-led Bench observed that the petitioner had been arrested for offences under Sections 3 and 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, which prescribe punishment ranging from two to five years, and therefore the arrest did not satisfy the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Anr.
Directing his immediate release, the Allahabad High Court had ordered that the petitioner “be released forthwith without waiting for the supply of certified copy of this order to the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.” As the Station House Officer (SHO) of Police Station Dhoomanganj was present in court, the Justice Siddharth-led Bench had made it clear that “the order shall be complied forthwith without waiting for certified copy of this order.”
However, in a subsequent order dated February 17, the Allahabad High Court noted that its directions had been complied with after nearly 20 hours. “It is clear that the order of this court was complied with after about 20 hours of passing of the same. Therefore, this court finds that respondents nos. 4 and 5 have no respect for the law of the land,” the Justice Siddharth-led Bench observed.
It directed the Prayagraj Commissioner of Police to “take appropriate action” against SHO Dhoomanganj and SI Digvijay Singh, in charge of T.P. Nagar, within three days and to communicate the compliance before the next date of hearing.
When the matter came up again on February 23, the Allahabad High Court expressed dissatisfaction over the action taken and directed the Commissioner of Police to file a personal affidavit detailing disciplinary measures initiated against the officials concerned, as well as steps taken to ensure circulation and implementation of Supreme Court guidelines across police stations.
In the final hearing on February 25, the Justice Siddharth-led Bench noted that the petitioner had already been released from custody and disposed of the habeas corpus petition. While declining to grant compensation within the habeas corpus proceedings, the Allahabad High Court clarified that the petitioner was free to pursue appropriate remedies available under the law.
“Since this petition is in the nature of Habeas Corpus, the direction for compensation cannot be granted. However, it is open for the petitioner to avail any other remedy available under law,” Justice Siddharth-led Bench said.
Dismissing the petition, the Allahabad High Court observed that the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, was expected to carry the disciplinary process already initiated “to its logical end”.
