Aastha Pareek
The Jharkhand High Court on December 18, 2024, held two police officials guilty of criminal contempt for unlawfully arresting two employees of Instakart, a Flipkart subsidiary, in violation of Supreme Court guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal No. 1277 of 2014 . The present case, Irshad and Anr v. State of Jharkhand & Ors, highlights the judiciary’s stance against arbitrary actions that infringes fundamental rights of a being.
The arrests stemmed from a customer complaint lodged against an Instakart delivery agent, alleging an attempt to deliver goods without an order and a demand for an OTP. Acting on this, the Jagarnathpur Police Station arrested two senior Instakart employees in February 2024, including an Area Manager and a Hub Manager based in Ranchi. Following their release on bail, the employees approached the High Court, claiming that their arrests violated the Supreme Court’s directives in Arnesh Kumar case (supra) where arrest related guidelines were issued by the Court. It was argued that no notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) had been issued before the arrests, as mandated for offences punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan strongly criticized the police, terming the arrests “ridiculous” and “unacceptable.” The Court noted that the alleged demand for an OTP to deliver goods could not justify such drastic action. Citing the Supreme Court’s guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kunar case (Supra), the Court emphasized that police officers are required to issue a notice for appearance before making an arrest in such cases. Arrests are permissible only if the accused fails to comply with the notice or if specific reasons necessitating the arrest are recorded. In this instance, the police failed to fulfill these conditions and relied on pre-printed forms, reflecting a lack of due diligence.
The Court underscored that personal liberty, a fundamental right laid down in Article 21 of the Constitution, cannot be curtailed arbitrarily. It observed that the allegations in the FIR were demonstrably false and the offences alleged were not severe enough to warrant an arrest. The High Court ruled that the police had acted in brazen violation of procedural safeguards, demonstrating a non-application of mind by seeking judicial remand of the accused after their arrests.
The Bench further emphasized that the two police officials were guilty of contempt of court and sentenced them with one month of simple imprisonment along with a fine of ₹2,000. The Court also directed the State to initiate disciplinary action against the officials. The sentence was suspended for four weeks to enable the officers to approach the Supreme Court, if they wished. The petitioners were awarded costs of ₹50,000 each, to be paid by the errant officers. Additionally, the Court granted the petitioners the liberty to seek further compensation for their wrongful arrests.
This judgment reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to protecting fundamental rights and ensuring accountability for misuse of power. Advocate Indrajit Sinha represented the petitioners, while Assistant Counsel for Additional Advocate General Rohit appeared for the State of Jharkhand.
Case Name:– Irshad and Anr v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Case Number:- Cont. Case (Civil) No. 387 of 2024
Bench:- Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan