Jharkhand High Court holds two cops guilty for illegal arrests of Flipkart employees

The Jharkhand High Court on Wednesday found two police officials guilty of criminal contempt of court for arresting two employees of Flipkart-owned Instakart in violation of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court [Irshad and Anr v. State of Jharkhand & Ors].A Bench of Chief Justice MS Ramachadra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan sentenced the two police officials to imprisonment for one month and also asked the State to take disciplinary action against them.The officials of Jagarnathpur Police Station had arrested two Instakart officials based on a complaint by a customer of Myntra, a fashion e-commerce company owned by Flipkart.One of the petitioners was an area manager of Instakart while the other was a Manager at the Instakart Hub at Hinoo, Ranchi.The two petitioners were arrested after the customer accused an Instakart delivery agent of trying to deliver certain goods to the customer without any order and for asking him to provide an OTP.The police action was "ridiculous" and unacceptable, the Bench said while opining that the alleged insistence for an OTP to deliver the products by itself cannot be a justification for the arrest. It ruled that there was brazen violation of arrest-related guidelines issued by Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr."Personal liberty is an important fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India and unless there is an absolute necessity for arrest, personal liberty cannot be taken away in this arbitrary manner as was done by Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3," it said..The petitioners Irshad Razi and Faiz Ahmad, though not directly connected to the delivery of products allegedly ordered on Myntra (also owned by Flipkart), were arrested by the police in February this year.After they were released on bail, they moved the High Court with a contempt of court plea alleging violation of the guidelines issued by Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Versus State of Bihar & Others and Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation.It was submitted that before arrest, no notice under the provisions of Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was issued to them by the police as mandated by the top court. In offences punishable with imprisonment less than or extending to seven years, the arresting officer is duty-bound to record reasons for arrest in the manner laid down in judicial pronouncements, it was argued. "Their arrest was totally unnecessary and the allegations in the F.I.R. are demonstrably false," the Court was told.In the judgment passed on December 17, the High Court noted that when arrest of a person is not required under Section 41(1) of the CrPC, the police officer is required to issue notice directing the accused to appear before him at a specified place and time."It further mandates that if such an accused complies with the terms of notice, he shall not be arrested, unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that the arrest is necessary. It held that at this stage also, condition precedent for arrest as envisaged under Section 41 CrPC has to be complied and shall be subject to the same scrutiny by the Magistrate," the Bench said while referring to the top court's guidelines..In this backdrop, the Court said the offences alleged against the petitioners were not so serious as to warrant the deprivation of their personal liberty.It also noted that the cops in their response had not denied that pre-printed forms were used at the time of making the arrest..The fact that the police officials only sought judicial remand of the accused after their arrest was also suggestive of their non-application of mind, it further observed..Accordingly, it found the two police officials guilty of contempt of court and sentenced them to a simple imprisonment of one month with fine of ₹2,000. However, the sentence was suspended for four weeks to enable them to approach the Supreme Court, in case they choose to do so."The petitioners are also awarded costs of ₹50,000 each to be paid by respondent Nos.2 and 3 equally. It is open to them to avail other remedies available in law for claiming compensation for wrongful arrest by Opposite party No.2 and Opposite Party no.3," the Court further ordered..Advocates Indrajit Sinha appeared for the petitioners.Assistant Counsel for Additional Advocate General Rohit represented the State of Jharkhand. .[Read Order]