In Rakesh Kumar & Anr. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Manmohan and Vijay Bishnoi passed a 2-page long order dated June 8, 2026 staying interim order dated March 30, 2026 by Justice Arun Kumar Jha of Patna High High Court. The Supreme Court's order reads:"4. Till further orders, there shall be stay of impugned judgment and order as well as further proceedings in Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.256 of 2022" referring to Kumar Dushyant vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2026). Rakesh Kumar, the respondent no 11 is in S.D.P.O., Jamui P.S., Jamui before the High Court. The petitioner no. 2 is Pramod Kumar Mandal who is the respondent no.12 in the case which is pending in the High Court.
The relevant paragraph in the High Court's order reads:"25. So far as other respondents, namely the Sub-Divisional Police Officer and the Superintendent of Police, Jamui are concerned, being not directly involved in the arrest of the petitioner or being liable for ensuring service of notice, it could not be said that they are in contempt of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, being the superiors of respondent no. 10, the then IO and also the then SHO, not taking appropriate action in accordance with law against him renders these two respondents liable for departmental action. 26. Therefore, in the light of discussion made hereinbefore, finding disobedience of the mandate of law as well as the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Director General of Police, Bihar/competent authority is directed to initiate departmental proceeding against the respondent no. 10, 11 and 12, the then SHO, SDPO, Superintendent of Police, Jamui, respectively. Till completion of departmental proceeding, no investigation work would be assigned to respondent no. 10."
Supreme Court's order records that "the counsel for the petitioners states that despite recording that the petitioners were neither directly involved in the alleged act nor in violation of the directions issued by this Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2014) 8 1SCC 273, the High Court has proceeded to issue adverse strictures and direct initiation of departmental proceedings. 2. Issue notice by all modes, returnable on 20.07.2026. 3.Mr. Manish Kumar, learned AOR, accepts notice on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 8."
It is intriguing as to why the Supreme Court stayed the "further proceedings in Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.256 of 2022" when only respondent no. 11 and 12, two out of the 12 respondents had approached it for relief.
Does it not imply that Supreme Court has put a stay on completion of departmental
proceeding against respondent no.
10. Chandan Kumar, the then IO/ SHO who violated the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar case and Asfak Alam
case in not issuing the notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A of
the CrPC to the petitioner and making the arrest in violation of the
said guidelines, hence, is liable for the breach of law and non-compliance
of direction of the Supreme Court and its willful disobedience? Does it imply that now investigation work would be assigned to Chandan Kumar although he ha sbeen found guilty?
Justice
Jha came to a finding that against the respondent no. 10, Chandan Kumar,
a case of Civil Contempt under the provision of Section 2 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is made out and he is directed to furnish a
show cause as to why contempt proceeding be not initiated against him
for wilful disobedience of the directions of the orders of the Supreme
Court. As a consequence of the Supreme Court's order, has the contempt proceeding been stayed?
The case was filed in the Supreme Court on May 24, 2026, registered May 29, 2026 and verified on June 3, 2026. The other ten respondents are: Principal Secretary, Director General of Police, Deputy Inspector General of Police, District Magistrate, Suprintendent of Police, Sub-Divisional Police, Kumari Anchala, Chandan Kumar and Kumar Dushyant.
It is clear that Kumar Dushyant's counsel will have to approach the Supreme Court to seek clarification with regard to the action initiated by High Court against Chandan Kumar.
In Kumar Dushyant vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Jha of the High Court has passed a 28-page long order dated March 30, 2026, wherein, he concluded that CJM did not fulfill the requirement of the Supreme Court's decision in Arnesh Kumar because CJM's order dated November 25, 2020 authorizing the detention merely records that the offence is non-bailable and there were sufficient material available for remanding him from case diary. Such mechanical order by a judicial officer needs to be deprecated in strongest terms. Authorizing detention without recording reasons regarding satisfaction of the Court and, the same being non-speaking would be in violation of the guidelines of the Supreme Court and would make such judicial officer liable for departmental action. However, considering that it is a judicial order, this Court would not like to interfere with such order under its writ jurisdiction and leave it to the disciplinary authority to take appropriate action on administrative side. The right of the petitioner to personal liberty was curtailed not by a procedure established by law but in an arbitrary manner by the IO who also happened to be the SHO. Hence, Chandan Kumar, the SHO, the respondent no.10 defied the directions of the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar case and Asfak Alam case wherein, the Court held that for the event of non-service of notice under Section 41-A of the CrPC and for arrest without recording the reasons necessitating the arrest, contempt proceeding would be initiated, against the erring official and has, thus, made himself liable for initiation of contempt proceeding." The case is pending in the High Court.
As far as Sub-Divisional Police Officer and the Superintendent of Police, Jamui are concerned, being the superiors of respondent no. 10, the then IO and also the then SHO, not taking appropriate action in accordance with law against him renders these two respondents liable for departmental action for disobedience of the mandate of law as well as the directions of the Supreme Court, the Director General of Police, Bihar/competent authority is directed to initiate departmental proceeding against the respondent no. 10, Dr. Rakesh Kumar, the respondent no. 11 and Pramod Mandal, the respondent no. 12, the then SHO, SDPO, Superintendent of Police, Jamui, respectively. Till completion of departmental proceeding, no investigation work would be assigned to respondent no. 10. Chandan Kumar, the then IO/ SHO has violated the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar case and Asfak Alam case in not issuing the notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A of the CrPC to the petitioner and making the arrest in violation of the said guidelines, hence, for the breach of law and non-compliance of direction of the Supreme Court and its willful disobedience, Justice Jha came to a finding that against the respondent no. 10, Chandan Kumar, a case of Civil Contempt under the provision of Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is made out and he is directed to furnish a show cause as to why contempt proceeding be not initiated against him for wilful disobedience of the directions of the orders of the Supreme Court.
The show cause must be filed within eight weeks. The case is listed for hearing on June 19, 2026. The High Court's order dated March 30, 2026 records that Chandan Kumar is presently posted as Barhiya S.H.O., P.S. and District- Lakhisarai.
The other 11 respondents are:the respondent no. 2 Principal Secretary, Home Police, Bihar, Patna, the respondent no.3, the respondent no.4, Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna, the respondent no. 5, Deputy Inspector general of Police, Central Bihar, Patna, the respondent no.6, District Magistrate, Jamui, Superintendent of Police, Jamui, the respondent no.7, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sadar, Jamui, the respondent no. 8, Chandan Kumar, Officer-in-Charge-cum-Investigation Officer, Jamui Town Police, Station, Jamui, respondent no. 9. Kumari Anchala D/O Parsuram Mishra, the respondent no. 10, Chandan Kumar, SHO., Dr. Rakesh Kumar, and the respondent no. 11, Pramod Mandal.
The petition was filed for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents authority to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against the erring Officer-in-Charge Jamui Town Police Station and Investigating Officer Jamui Town PS Case No. 379 / 2020 in connivance with Superintendent of Police and SDPO, Jamui who have illegally arrested the petitioner. The petitioner prayed to hold the officers involved in the case guilty of contempt of court as they have willfully and deliberately disobeyed the directions of the Supreme Court rendered in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and the mandate of Article 144 of the Constitution of India. The petition sought direction to award exemplary damages to the petitioner as he suffered injury of mental and prestige due to negligent/arbitrarily/malafide act of the officers involved in the case.
On a written report by Kumari Anchala to the police, Jamui P.S. Case No. 379 of 2020 on July 26, 2020 under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 66(c)(d) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was instituted. The allegation in the written report was about hacking of Facebook account of the informant and posting of obnoxious messages on the said account. The investigation was handed over to one Dinesh Ram, Sub-Inspector of Police who made a call to the petitioner on September 3, 2020 telling him that the petitioner was wanted in the case. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the said police official through a lawyer and when the lawyer had a meeting with the police official, he told the petitioner to go and meet the Investigating Officer as allegation was not serious and appeared to be trivial in nature. The petitioner went and met with the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer told him about pressure from his senior officials for making out the arrest of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted that, thereafter, the father of the petitioner along with his advocate approached Chandan Kumar, the concerned Station House Officer, Jamui Town, the respondent no. 10 and prayed for a fair investigation in the case. He also pleaded that the notice under Section 41-A of the CrPC be served upon the petitioner or alternatively he might be enlarged on bail since the offence as alleged in the FIR was bailable in nature and Section 420 of the IPC was wrongly inserted without any allegation for commission of the said offence. The respondent no. 10 disclosed that Section 420 of the IPC was inserted in the list of offences to make the case non-bailable and he was so instructed by the Superintendent of Police. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner approached the Sub-Divisional Police Officer again pleading for a fair supervision. Although the Sub-Divisional Police Officer showed his surprise about inclusion of Section 420 of the IPC in the light of allegation made in the FIR, he mechanically put a supervision note finding the case true under Section 420 of the IPC as well. The petitioner submitted that on November 24, 2020, the petitioner was sent by the Principal of the School to attend a Seminar at the District Education Office, Jamui which was just adjacent to the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Jamui. After the end of the seminar, while the petitioner was returning to his village on Scooty, he was waylaid by some unknown persons in plain dress riding two motorcycles who snatched his mobile and one of them identified himself as the Station House Officer of Jamui Police Station. These persons forcibly brought the petitioner to the police station and in the police station, the Station House Officer used abusive language against the petitioner. When the petitioner was apprehended, the country was under the grip of COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner was kept in the police station till late night of the next day and he was not allowed to meet any of his family members, who were not even informed about the arrest of the petitioner. Getting the news of abduction of the petitioner, his father came to the police station where he found that the petitioner was in police custody. When the father of the petitioner tried to meet him, he was shooed away by the police officials with threat that he would also be falsely implicated in some case and was told that petitioner would be sent to jail. The petitioner was sent to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui in handcuffs. The petitioner brought to the notice of the Chief Judicial Magistrate the mala fide act of the Investigating Officer and Station House Officer and submitted that the Investigating Officer had no power to arrest in the said case under the provisions of Section 41 of the CrPC. Thus, against the act of the police officials claiming it to be illegal, the petitioner has approached the High Court.
Satya Prakash Parasar, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of respondent-authorities violates the right of the petitioner provided under Article 14, 19 and 21 and also violates Article 144 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner all along cooperated with the police authorities and there was no apprehension of petitioner fleeing away and hampering the investigation in the matter. The counsel also submitted that the mala fide of the police officials is writ large on the face of the record. Though from the written report it is clear that the only allegation was against some unknown person that he hacked the Facebook account of the Kumari Anchala, the respondent no. 9 still offence under Section 420 of the IPC was inserted in the FIR. Therefore, inclusion of Section 420 of the IPC is completely arbitrary and it appears the same has been inserted to make the case serious and non-bailable. As it is apparent from the record that no prima facie case under Section 420 of the IPC is made out in the given facts and circumstances. Moreover, offences under the Information Technology Act, 2000 are of special category. It was a self contained legislation and a separate kind of procedure has been prescribed for investigation/inquiry/trial. Section 72 of the Information Technology Act provides that only the officers who are not below the rank of the Inspector can investigate the offences alleged to have been conducted under the provisions of IT Act. But for the reasons best known to the SHO and the Superintendent of Police, Jamui, a Sub-Inspector was appointed as the Investigating Officer of the case and the investigation got vitiated by this very fact. There is complete violation of the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 273 wherein, the Supreme Court deprecated the tendency of the police officials arresting the accused unnecessarily and the Magistrate authorizing such detention casually and mechanically. These guidelines were issued while considering a case under Section 498A IPC but subsequently in the case of Md. Asfak Alam vs. The State of Jharkhand, 2023 INSC 660 the Supreme Court clarified that these guidelines would be equally applicable to the cases registered for other offences wherein the punishment extends up to seven years. Although no offences under Section 420 of the IPC could have been inferred from the allegation made in the written report of respondent no. 9 still, considering the guidelines issued in the case of Arnesh Kumar(supra) and Asfak Alam (supra) the police authorities could not have arrested the petitioner. The police officials acted beyond the mandate of law and did not follow the provisions of Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC. No reasons in writing were given necessitating the arrest of the petitioner. Therefore, the liberty of the petitioner was curtailed without any sanction of law and hence, the police officials are in contempt of the orders of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Arnesh Kumar(supra) and Asfak Alam (supra). The petitioner is a teacher and he has all along been performing his duty and never absconded, still, he had been wrongly arrested by the police officials.T he police officials were predetermined to put the petitioner behind the bar and issued press note and got the news published in local newspaper that a serious and heinous kind of crime has been committed by the petitioner. This news was circulated on Whatsapp through the mobile number 9386382267 by Chandan Kumar, the then S.H.O. Jamui Town and the respondent no. 10 and it shows his personal bias in the case.
While the petitioner was taken to the Court of the CJM, he was put under handcuffs and was taken to the Court on foot through a busy market to malign his image. Even the application for remand before the CJM is full of wrong facts. The remand was sought on the ground that release of the petitioner would create law and order problem but the fact was ignored that the petitioner being a teacher was on his duty even on the date when he was arrested. Therefore, allowing of remand by the CJM, Jamui was also illegal. The counsel submitted that undue haste was shown by the Investigating Officer in effecting the arrest of the petitioner and the police authorities acted in most mala fide and arbitrary manner against the petitioner. The counsel also submitted that the fact was not considered that life and liberty of a citizen is sacrosanct and making arrest in such trivial matter without any material runs contrary to the fair play in action and goes against the mandate of law and judicial pronouncements made from time to time by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, learned counsel referred to the case of D.K. Basu vs. State of W. Bengal, (1997)1 SCC 416 wherein certain guidelines were issued to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention. The counsel submitted that none of the family members of the petitioner were informed about his arrest and this fact is clear from the arrest memo dated November 24, 2020 wherein in the column of persons who have been informed about the arrest, it has only been mentioned that information was given to family member (parijan) without specifying the name or relationship of the family member. The counsel reiterated that the arrest of the petitioner violates the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Arensh Kumar(supra), Asfak Alam (supra) and D.K. Basu (supra) and hence makes the respondent-authorities liable for contempt.
The counsel also referred to the case of Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Ors., AIR 1994 SC 1349 wherein, the Supreme Court issued certain guidelines with regard to right of an arrested person flowing from Article 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The counsel submitted that for illegal detention of the petitioner, the authorities should be heavily penalized and departmental proceedings be initiated against them and they should be proceeded for committing Contempt of Court and petitioner should be adequately compensated.
On the point of compensation, counsel referred to the case of Dr. Rini Johar & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & Ors., AIR 2016 SC 2679, wherein, the Supreme Court finding that the conditions precedent of procedure of arrest were not followed and liberty of the petitioners was curtailed, a compensation of Rs. 5 lacs was awarded to each of the petitioners to be paid by the State. The counsel also referred to the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Singh vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. passed in CrWJC No. 2761 of 2025 dated November 13, 2025 and the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Rakesh Kumar vs. Vijayanta Arya (DCP) and Ors. in Cont. Case No. 480/2020 wherein, the petitioner was adequately compensated for his unauthorized detention.
The counsel also referred to the decision in S. Rajarethinam(deceased) & Ors. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. in WMP No. 37619 of 2017 and Jakka Vinod Kumar Reddy vs. Mr. A.R. Srinivas, DCP, 2022 SCC OnLine TS 1190 wherein, the Single Judge of Telangana High Court finding that notice was not served in terms of guidelines of Arnesh Kumar (supra) held the respondents to be contemnors having willfully disobeyd the judgment of the Supreme Court and ordered them to be punished for Contempt of Court.
Justice Jha noted that from the record, it also transpires that initially one Sub-Inspector Dinesh Ram was made the Investigating Officer but subsequently, Chandan Kumar, the respondent no. 10, the then SHO was handed over the charge of investigation by the order dated November 17, 2020 by the Superintendent of Police, Jamui. Therefore, for all purposes Chanadan Kumar, the Officer-in-Charge-cum-Investigation Officer, Jamui Town Police Station, Jamui, the respondent no. 8 and Chanadan Kumar, the respondent no. 10 are the same person.
The petitioner has alleged non-compliance of Section 41(1) and Section 41-A of the CrPC as well as the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and Asfak Alam(supra). On the other hand, the answering respondents have denied any non-compliance of mandatory provisions of law or the guidelines of the Supreme Court.
Section 41(1) and Section 41-A of the CrPC reads: “41. When police may arrest without warrant. (1) Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person - (a)[ who commits, in the presence of a police office, a cognisable offence; (b)against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognisable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years whether with or without fine, if the following conditions are satisfied, namely: (i)the police has reason to believe on the basis of such complaint, information, or suspicion that such person has committed the said offence;
(ii) the police officer is satisfied that such arrest is necessary- (a) to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or (b)for proper investigation of the offence; or (c)to prevent such person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or (d) to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer;or (e)as unless such person is arrested, his presence in the Court whenever required cannot be ensured and the police officer shall record while making such arrest, his reason in writing; [Provided that a police officer shall, in all the cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provision of this sub-section, record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest.]
[41A. Notice of appearance before police officer. (1) [The police officer shall], in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 41, issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice. (2) Where such a notice is issued to any person, it shall be the duty of that person to comply with the terms of the notice. (3) Where such person complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested. [(4) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may, subject to such orders as may have been passed by a competent Court in this behalf, arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice.]”
Therefore it is only under certain conditions that a police officer may arrest a person without an order from a Magistrate or without any warrant.
In Arnesh Kumar's case, the Supreme Court in paragraph no. 11 gave the following directions:-“11. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically.
In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction:
11.1 All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC;
11.2 All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);
11.3 The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;
11.4 The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;
11.5 The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
11.6 Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
11.7 Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.
11.8 Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.”
In Asfak Alam's case, the Supreme court in para 12 held that the directions of Arensh Kumar(supra) shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A IPC or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but also to such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years, whether with or without fine.
Justice Jha observed that it is in this background that the arrest of the petitioner is to be tested. From the facts of the case and averment made in the counter affidavit of the respondents, it is evident that no notice was served upon the petitioner following the mandate of Section 41-A of the CrPC directing him to appear before the Investigation Officer considering the fact that the maximum sentence prescribed for offences mentioned in the FIR was seven years with fine. There has been no submission before this Court or any averment in the counter affidavit of any of the respondents that a notice under Section 41-A was served upon the petitioner. Though general averments have been made about compliance of Section 41(1), Section 41-A of CrPC and guidelines of Supreme Court regarding arrest and detention of an accused, no specific averment has been made about the satisfaction being recorded by the police officer for arrest of the petitioner, no documents have been brought on record by any of the respondents showing such satisfaction in terms of Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of CrPC. Perusal of the remand application, shows even while seeking detention for a fortnight, only averment which has been made for keeping the petitioner in custody is that there was sufficient evidence against him and his release on bond would give rise to law and order situation but details are completely lacking. The Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar has made it very much clear that non-compliance of the guidelines would render the erring police officials liable for departmental action as well as for Contempt of Court.
Justice Jha observed that from the order of the CJM dated November 25, 2020, "it appears petitioner was produced before the Court with Memo of arrest, seizure list without seized articles, checklist, photocopy of subscriber details, photocopy of medical prescription and photocopy of case diary. None of the respondents produced the checklist or any document to bring forth the fact before this court why arrest of the petitioner was necessary though maximum sentence prescribed for the offences mentioned in the FIR was imprisonment for seven years and fine. Therefore, there is non-compliance of Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC as no material has been brought on record to show that the arrest of the petitioner was necessary at the first instance. Mere bland assertion about release of the petitioner giving rise to law and order situation would not suffice to meet the obligation under Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC. It also runs counter to the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar(supra) and Asfak Alam(supra)."
Justice Jha observed: "22. The liberty of a person is precious and the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases of Arnesh Kumar(supra) and Asfak Alam(supra) are only to ensure that police officers do not unnecessarily arrest any person and the Magistrate do not mechanically remand any person. Once the Investigating Officer/respondent-authorities came to know about the involvement of the petitioner in the case in hand, they were supposed to furnish him a notice within two weeks under Section 41-A of the CrPC but no such steps were taken. Rather the petitioner was arrested on 24.11.2020 and brought before the learned CJM, Jamui on 25.11.2020." He added: "23. Even the remand of the petitioner by the learned CJM does not fulfil the requirement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) because the order dated 25.11.2020 authorizing the detention merely records that the offence is non-bailable and there were sufficient material available for remanding him from case diary. Such mechanical order by a judicial officer needs to be deprecated in strongest terms. Authorizing detention without recording reasons regarding satisfaction of the Court and, the same being non-speaking would be in violation of the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and would make such judicial officer liable for departmental action. However, considering that it is a judicial order, this Court would not like to interfere with such order under its writ jurisdiction and leave it to the disciplinary authority to take appropriate action on administrative side. However, the contention made on behalf of the respondents that the order of the learned CJM dated 25.11.2020 remanding the petitioner into custody and subsequently cognizance being taken have put a cloak of legality over the previous action of the IO/SHO, Jamui in arresting the petitioner without notice, is without any substance. If the initial act is bad, then all subsequent proceedings become tainted and would suffer from illegality."
Justice Jha drew on the decision of the Supreme court in State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, (2011) 14 SCC 770 to state that "the orders of the CJM could not undone the previous act of the police authorities, if the same has been against the law of the land as the authorities must be reminded that under Article 144 of the Constitution of India, all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India are under a bounden duty to act in the aid of the Supreme Court and any guidelines issued by the Supreme Court is to be obeyed without demur by the authorities."
The order concluded: "24. The right of the petitioner to personal liberty has been curtailed not by a procedure established by law but in an arbitrary manner by the IO who also happened to be the SHO. Hence, the respondent no.10 (the then SHO), has defied the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar(supra) & Asfak Alam(supra) wherein it has been held that for the event of non-service of notice under Section 41-A of the CrPC and for arrest without recording the reasons necessitating the arrest, contempt proceeding would be initiated, against the erring official and has, thus, made himself liable for initiation of contempt proceeding."
