Muralidharan T.K. v. Anil Kumar and Anish M.S.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** **MONDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1944 CON.CASE(C) NO. 1560 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN Bail Appl. 3485/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF** **KERALA** ## **PETITIONER:** MURALIDHARAN T.K. AGED 50 YEARS SON OF KRISHNAN, THYKKOOTTATHIL, THULAPPALLY P.O., MOOLAKKAYAM, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 686510 BY ADVS. RAJEE P MATHEWS JUSTIN DAVID AISWARYA E J VETTIKOMPIL ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 ANILKUMAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ERUMELY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686509 2 ANISH M.S. FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERUMELY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686509 BY ADVS. ARUNKUAMR M.R P.SHAMMI NAVAS(K/887/2001) THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **C.C.(C).No.1560 of 2022 2** ## **VIJU ABRAHAM,J** ## **-----------------------** ## **C.C.(C).No.1560 of 2022** ## **------------------------------------Dated this the 27[th] day of February, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** The above contempt of court case is filed alleging violation of the interim order passed by this court whereby a direction has issued not-toarrest the petitioner in connection with Crime No. 380/2022 of Erumeli Police Station, Kottayam District. The said interim order was initially granted as per Annexure 2 order on 27.05.2022 and later, the said interim order was extended up to 03.08.2022 as per Annexure 3 order and thereafter till 24.08.2022, as is evident from Annexure 4 order. The allegation against the respondents is that in violation of Annexure 3 order, the petitioner was arrested on 02.08.2022 and as per the direction of the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent and six other police officials trespassed into the house of the petitioner and forcefully took him into ## **C.C.(C).No.1560 of 2022 3** custody and on the way to the police station, he was brutally manhandled and that he was admitted in the hospital as is evident from Annexure A5. Petitioner further submits that the said arrest was even in violation of the direction issued by the Apex Court in **Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 2014 SC 2756.** It is also submitted that the petitioner was later granted bail as per the order passed by this court in BA No. 3485/2022, dated 22.09.2022. 2. The 2nd respondent appeared through counsel and filed an affidavit, mainly contending that the order extending the interim order was not received or found in the e-court portal and the petitioner has also not produced the said order before him. The accused was asked to accompany to the police station as part of the investigation. He was never arrested, harassed or manhandled. He was brought to the police station on 02.08.2022 at 6:25 p.m.,and thereafter a copy of the interim order extending the not-toarrest order was produced by a friend of the **C.C.(C).No.1560 of 2022 4** petitioner and thereupon, the petitioner left home at 8:35 p.m. on the same day as is evident from Ext R2(b). The allegation that the petitioner was manhandled is false as is evident from Ext R2(a) medical certificate. He further submitted that the said act was neither intentional nor deliberate and not with a view to show disrespect to the orders of this court. He also expressed his unconditional apology. 3. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would further submit that he has joined the service only on 21.6.2021, and some leniency may be shown and further undertook that he will be diligent hereafter not to repeat such acts. 4. Yet another complaint raised by the petitioner is that he has been brutally manhandled, which is denied by the 2nd respondent herein. I am of the opinion that the petitioner shall be given liberty to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with the law to claim compensation or to initiate criminal proceedings for the act allegedly done ## **C.C.(C).No.1560 of 2022 5** against him. Another serious aspect to be looked into is noncompliance of directions issued by the Apex Court in **Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 2014 SC 2756** regarding issuance of notice under Section 41A of Cr.PC before effecting the arrest. On finding that the said direction issued in **Arnesh Kumar** case supra is not followed, this court in **Muhammed Rafi v. Sathish Kumar M.V.** ( **CCC No. 808/2022)** issued further directions to the State Police Chief that the directions in **Arnesh Kumar’s** case supra and the directions in **Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine 825,** should be scrupulously followed. In **Arnesh Kumar** case supra, the Apex Court has directed that any failure to comply with directions contained in the judgment will render the police officers concerned liable for departmental action and also liable to be punished for contempt of court. Taking into consideration the fact that 2nd respondent is a new entrant to service and further that the petitioner was permitted to go on the very same day on coming ## **C.C.(C).No.1560 of 2022 6** to know about the interim order passed by this court, and accepting the unconditional apology offered by him, further proceedings in the contempt of court case is dropped. Since the petitioner was taken to the police station, by the 2nd respondent, who is the investigating officer in the above said crime, further proceedings against the 1st respondent is also dropped. The State Police Chief or any other person competent in the police force shall look into the matter and examine whether disciplinary proceedings are to be initiated against the 2nd respondent in terms of the directions in **Arnesh Kumar** case supra, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the 2nd respondent. The said exercise shall be done without any delay and the outcome of the decision in the said proceeding shall be duly intended to the petitioner. Since serious violations of the directions in **Arnesh** **Kumar** case supra is coming to the notice of this court, the State Police Chief shall issue necessary directions to the officers under him to strictly ## **C.C.(C).No.1560 of 2022 7** comply with the directions in **Arnesh Kumar** case supra, **Satender Kumar Antil’s** case supra in terms of the directions already issued by this court in **Muhammed Rafi v. Sathish Kumar M.V.** ( **CCC No.** ## **808/2022).** Registry to communicate a copy of this order to the State Police Chief for appropriate followup action. With the above-said direction, the contempt of court case is disposed of. sd/- **VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE** pm ## **C.C.(C).No.1560 of 2022 8** ## **APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1560/2022** |PETITIONER ANNEXURES|PETITIONER ANNEXURES| |---|---| |Annexure1|A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.| ||380/2022 OF ERUMELI POLICE STATION,| ||KOTTAYAM DISTRICT| |Annexure2|A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER| ||DATED 23.05.2022 IN B.A. NO. 3485/2022| |Annexure3|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED| ||18.07.2022 IN B.A. NO. 3485/2022| |Annexure4|A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED| ||03.08.2022 IN B.A. NO. 3485/2022| |Annexure5|A TRUE COPY OF THE CLINICAL EXAMINATION| ||AND DIAGNOSIS CERTIFICATE DATED| ||02.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL| ||OFFICER, GENERAL HOSPITAL, KANJIRAPPALLY| |RESPONDENT ANNEXURES|| |Annexure R2(a)|Copy of the medical certificate issued| ||by the Assissi Hospital, Mukkottuthara,| ||Erumely dated 2.8.2022| |Annexure R2(b)|Copy of the General Dairy entry of the| ||Erumely Police Station dated 2.8.2022|