RAMESHBHAI NARANBHAI PANCHAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been filed under Sec. 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short "the Act") for the breach of directions of the Apex Court issued in the cases of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 S.C.C. 273, D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 S.C.C. 416 and Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P., (1994) 4 S.C.C. 260.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr.Buch appearing for the applicants has submitted that despite submitting the affidavit before the Court below, the respondent No.3, without prior intimation, arrested the applicants and booked him behind the bar, which amounts to contempt and same is in violation of the judgements referred in the memo of the application as well as in contravention of the provisions of Sec. 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Cr.P.C .) as initially, while opposing the bail application submitted by the applicants, the concerned Investigating Officer at the relevant point of time in the year 2018, submitted that arrest of the applicants was not necessary and after 4 years, the succeeding Investigating Officer i.e. respondent No.3 has taken a opposite stand and arrested the accused without intimation. It is submitted that the F.I.R. being C.R.No.I-54 of 2018 came to be registered at Vyara Police Station, Tapi for the offences punishable under Ss. 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the applicants alleging that the accused have forged the documents and produced them before the authority. It is submitted that apprehending arrest in connection with the said F.I.R., the applicants preferred an application for anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 of the Cr.P.C. being Criminal Misc. Application No.620 of 2018 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tapi, where the notice was issued upon the Investigating Officer, on service of which the Investigating Officer i.e. Police Inspector, Vyara Police Station appeared before the Court and during the course of hearing, the concerned Investigating Officer viz. Mr.R.S.Patel, submitted his affidavit below Exh.4, whereby it is stated that the investigation is at preliminary stage and documents are yet to be collected and on collection of those documents, it would be clear as to whether the accused are required to be arrested or not and thereafter, on prior intimation, appropriate proceedings will be initiated. It is submitted that since the concerned Investigating Officer made an endorsement on the application to the effect, the applicants withdrew the said application without prejudice to rights and contentions with a liberty to file afresh in case of necessity, on the basis of which, the Court below vide order dtd. 13/8/2018 disposed of the said application.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr.Buch has further submitted that thereafter, no investigation was put into motion and the applicants were also available for the investigation however, on or before the next date of hearing on 30/5/2022, a police officer from the concerned Police Station came at the residence of the applicants and informed that they are wanted, upon which the applicants have informed about filing of their anticipatory bail application and the affidavit filed therein but the police officer did not consider the request and asked them to come to the Police Station for recording their statements. It is submitted that the applicants have also represented their case before the Police Inspector of Vyara Police Station, Mr.K.B.Zala. It is further submitted that the learned advocate, who had appeared in the earlier bail application of the applicants, had also intimated the respondent No.3 about the earlier proceedings, including the affidavit submitted by the previous Police Inspector in the case and the order passed by the Court below and requested the respondent No.3 to permit him to tender the documents, which would make the picture clear however, the concerned advocate was told to leave the Police Station. Thus, learned advocate Mr.Buch has submitted that the applicants are arrested despite the aforesaid assurance given by the Police Inspector i.e. respondent No.3 and hence, the proceedings under the Act may be initiated against him for violation of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar(supra).