BABY CHATTERJEE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Navin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned A.A.G.-II appearing for the State and Mrs. Ritu Kumar assisted by Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel who appeared suo motu on behalf of the informant-respondent no.7.

(2.) This petition has been filed for release of one Sri Arup Chatterjee, who happens to be a journalist of news channel namely News 11 Bharat, by the wife of the said journalist on the ground that without following the due process of law in terms of the provisions made under the Cr.P.C., the husband of the petitioner has been arrested by the police in the midnight of 16/7/2022/17/7/2022 at 12:20 a.m. from the apartment where he was residing at Ranchi.

(3.) Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who happens to be wife of the said journalist namely Arup Chatterjee has filed this petition as nobody has been allowed to meet with Arup Chatterjee who is in custody. He submits that even the lawyers tried to contact Arup Chatterjee, but they have not been allowed and that is why this petition has been filed by the petitioner, who happens to be the wife of the said journalist. He further submits that the procedure prescribed under Ss. 80 and 81 Cr.P.C has not been followed and Dhanbad police came to Ranchi without intimation to the local police and without following the due procedure prescribed under Ss. 80 and 81 of the Cr.P.C. and arrested the husband of the petitioner from the bedroom in midnight. He also submits that in such a way the liberty of a citizen of the country cannot be allowed to be taken even by the police. According to him, the police has not issued any notice under Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C and straightway on the petition filed by the Investigating Officer, the learned court has issued a warrant of arrest and that has been executed in such a way that liberty of the husband of this petitioner has been taken away. To buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2020 2 SCC OnLine 825.