In the case titled Contempt Application (Civil) No. 3267 of 2024, applicants Ashutosh Singh and another have filed a contempt application before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, against Ankita Singh-II, Incharge Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 21, Sultanpur, and another. The application was heard by Justice Rajeev Singh. The applicants were represented by their counsels, Sukh Deo Singh and Paritosh Shukla.
The case stems from an alleged property dispute involving the applicants and other members of the same family. On June 23, 2024, an incident occurred where the applicants’ uncle, Shiv Kumar, was attacked by several accused persons—Vijay Pratap Singh, Arun Singh, Anil Singh, Gyanendra Singh, and Avneesh Singh—armed with lathis, dandas, and farsa. During the incident, Shiv Kumar and applicant no. 1 sustained injuries, and applicant no. 2 received a head injury. A cross-FIR was also lodged by Anil Singh against the applicants, and both FIRs were registered at Police Station Jamu, District Amethi.
Legal Issues Involved:
The primary legal issue in this case revolves around the alleged willful and deliberate defiance of the Supreme Court’s orders in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2022) and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another (2014). The applicants argue that their detention by the police and subsequent remand by the Magistrate violated the directives laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in these landmark cases.
The Supreme Court, in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), mandated that an arrest must be an exception and not the rule in cases where the offense is punishable by less than seven years. Moreover, the court directed that police officers and judicial magistrates must record reasons for any detention, failing which they would be liable for contempt of court.
Court’s Decision and Observations:
Hon’ble Justice Rajeev Singh observed that the facts presented in the contempt application indicated non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s directives. The court took note that the remand magistrate did not record any reasons in the case diary before sending the applicants to judicial custody, a clear violation of the principles laid down in the Arnesh Kumar case. Justice Rajeev Singh remarked:
“Failure to comply with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar shall, apart from rendering the police officials concerned liable for departmental action, also make them liable to be punished for contempt of court.”
Based on the submissions and the documents on record, the court issued notices to the respondents to show cause within two weeks as to why they should not be punished for willful disobedience of the court’s orders. The case is scheduled to be heard next on September 13, 2024.
