The Telangana High Court has sentenced a police officer to one month of imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 2,000 after finding him guilty of arresting a suspect who was covered under an active judicial order protecting him from custody.
Passing the order on September 18 in a contempt petition, Justice K. Sujana ruled that the officer had acted in wilful disobedience of the court’s directives. However, the bench suspended the execution of the sentence for four weeks after the public prosecutor requested time to allow the state government to pursue an appeal.
Breach Of Judicial Protection
The dispute stems from a dowry death investigation registered at the Saroor Nagar police station. The accused had moved the High Court for anticipatory bail, securing an initial order on April 21 that restrained the investigating agency from arresting him until April 23. The High Court subsequently extended this protective relief on April 23 and again on April 27.
According to the petitioner, he was undergoing medical treatment at a hospital when police officers pressured doctors and administrative personnel to discharge him to facilitate his detention. He stated that the hospital discharged him under duress on April 28, following which the police took him to the police station and formally placed him under arrest.
The petitioner was subsequently produced before a local magistrate for remand. After defense counsel presented the High Court’s interim protection orders, the magistrate rejected the remand plea and directed the petitioner’s immediate release.
Rejection Of Ignorance Plea
During the contempt proceedings, the prosecution contended that the arresting officer was unaware of the extension of the interim relief, asserting that neither the petitioner nor his lawyer had provided a copy of the renewed order prior to the arrest. The officer tendered an unconditional apology, maintaining that the arrest was neither deliberate nor intentional.
Justice Sujana rejected these contentions, holding that because the officer was admittedly aware of the initial April 21 restraint, the burden lay on him to verify subsequent developments before executing an arrest. The bench pointed out that the investigator ought to have confirmed the legal status of the case through the public prosecutor or by checking the High Court’s official website.
The court also noted that the officer, during his personal appearance, acknowledged facing pressure to arrest the petitioner, which the judge observed substantiated the petitioner’s allegations. Holding the officer’s explanation unacceptable, the court concluded that the arrest constituted deliberate non-compliance with judicial orders.
