M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ.

1. This Contempt Case was initiated on 13.5.2026 during the hearing of W.P.(Crl.) no.06 of 2026 (Ratna Roy v. State of Tripura and others) against the respondent for arresting Shri Saikat Saha, the son of the petitioner therein on 4.4.2026 at about 1100 pm allegedly in violation of guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another ((2014) 8 SCC 273).

2. In Arnesh Kumar (1 supra), it was directed by the Supreme Court that persons accused of offences punishable with imprisonment for a term less than 7 years or which may extend to seven years shall not be arrested straight away, and that the police officers should first satisfy themselves of the need for such arrest. Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A Cr.P.C should be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing. Failure to comply with these directions by police officers will render them susceptible for disciplinary action and also for contempt of court before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

3. To understand the context of initiating this Contempt case, it is necessary to refer briefly to facts and events in W.P.(Crl.) no.06 of 2026.

W.P.(Crl.) no.06 of 2026:

4. In the above Writ Petition filed on 29.4.2026, the petitioner Smt. Ratna Roy alleged that herself, her husband and her son Saikat Saha reside in Agartala. She and her family are said to be making construction of a G+3 building in their premises.

5. It is alleged that one Ranjana Dey, their neighbor lodged a complaint with the Agartala Municipal Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation') stating that the said construction was in deviation of the plan sanctioned by the Corporation and Smt. Ratna Roy was asked to appear before the Asst. Commissioner of the said Corporation on 18.3.2026. She claims that she appeared and explained that the construction was according to approved plan and thereafter no adverse order was passed by the Corporation.

6. She contended that thereafter one Rabindranath Ghosh, an employee of the Corporation and one Joy Debnath (a Special Police Officer) started visiting the site of the construction and started stopping the construction work. It is alleged that they approached her son Saikat Saha and demanded Rs.2 lakhs as illegal gratification and threatened that unless it is paid, construction will not be allowed to proceed.

7. She alleged that when her son refused to pay the said amount, on 4.4.2026 at 10.45 pm Rabindranath Ghosh, Joy Debnath and others came to her rented house, called out her son, and when he went out, they assaulted and severely beat him up. She further contended that when she and her husband tried to stop them, they also beat them up. It is alleged that Rabindranath Ghosh also threatened at the time that he would not allow the construction for one year. It is then alleged that Rabindranath Ghosh and Joy Debnath forcibly took the petitioner’s son to the East Agartala Police station and in the presence of the other police personnel, the petitioner’s son was again assaulted, humiliated and tortured. It is alleged that the above two persons touched her son’s private parts and attempted to disrobe him causing him pain, humiliation and mental anguish. It is also alleged that the police personnel present at that time, took no action to protect the petitioner’s son and these events were recorded in the CCTV cameras too.

8. She contends that while in the police station, he was also made to sign certain blank papers by the above persons.

9. The petitioner got her son released on bail on 5.4.2026. On 6.4.2026, she lodged a complaint with the Respondent no.5 police station disclosing the above facts and naming the aforesaid accused persons, but it is alleged that the latter did not register an FIR, did not make any arrest and did not make any investigation.

10. She also made a representation to the Commissioner of the Corporation on 6.4.2026. On 13.4.2026, she filed applications to the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura and to the Director General of Police, Tripura State, and when nothing happened, she filed this Writ Petition on 29.4.2026.

11. In the Writ Petition she sought (a) registration of FIR against the accused persons named in her complaint dt.6.4.2026 as it disclosed commission of cognizable offences, and (b) also sought directions to preserve and secure the CCTV footage of the respondent no.4 Police Station and to ensure that there is no deletion or overwriting of the said footage and other reliefs.

Events after filing of the Writ Petition:

12. On 6.5.2026, this Writ was listed before this Division Bench on a mention made the previous day by the counsel for petitioner.

13. It had come to light during the hearing that an FIR EAG No.38 dt.07.04.2026 had been registered against Saikat Saha under Section 132 and Section 351(2) of the BNS on a complaint allegedly made by another employee of the Agartala Municipal Corporation.

14. On 06.05.2026 when the case was listed, this Court noted that the complaint discloses commission of cognizable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNS, 2023) and at the request of the Public Prosecutor granted time for filing of counter affidavit and adjourned the case to 12.6.2026.

15. Since the incident had occurred within the precincts of the respondent No.4, Police Station, and since admittedly CCTVs were installed therein, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala was directed by this Court in its order dt.06.05.2026 to take custody of the CCTV footage for the period 04.04.2026 to 06.04.2026 forthwith and to retain the same in his custody.

16. On 12.05.2026, it was brought to the notice of this Court that CCTV footage had already been collected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala. This Court directed him to retain the same until further orders. Certain medical reports had been filed on that day which were taken on record and were directed to be placed in a sealed cover. The matter was directed to be listed on 13.05.2026.

The counter affidavit dt.11.5.2026 and the Preliminary inquiry report dt.16.4.2026 of the WSI, East Agartala Womens Police Station:

17. A counter affidavit had been filed on 11.5.2026 by the Under Secretary, Home Department on behalf of all respondents in the said Writ Petition with Annexures.

18. In the said counter affidavit dt.11.5.2026 filed by the Home Department, it was stated that a preliminary inquiry was conducted after receipt of the petitioner’s complaint through the Woman SI Nirupa Dey of West Agartala Women police Station under Section 173(5) of the BNSS.

19. The said inquiry report dt.16.4.2026 was filed as Annexure R-3 to the counter affidavit.

20. The said R-3 report revealed that an altercation took place on the night of 4.4.2026 involving the victim Saikat Saha and the accused Rabindranath Ghosh followed by a scuffle concerning the construction being carried out by the latter on the land belonging to his mother, that Saikat Saha allegedly behaved in a hostile and aggressive manner towards the Govt. official and subsequently allegedly threatened Sri Rabindranath Ghosh over the telephone.

21. It further states that medical documents from AGMC & GBP Hospital of Saikat Saha prima facie support the allegation that Sri Saikat Saha sustained injuries consistent with physical assault.

22. The report also revealed that Swapnil Kumar, Asst. Municipal Commissioner, East Zone, Agartala Municipal Corporation lodged a complaint against Saikat Saha which was registered as PS case No.2026 EAG 038 dt.7.4.2026 under Section 132 (assault or Criminal Force to deter public servant from discharge of public duty) and Section 351(2) (punishment for Criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

23. The said report also stated that as per East Agartala P.S. Prosecution report No.763 of 2026, on the same night of 4.4.2026 at around 2305 hrs., the victim Saikat Saha was arrested by the East Agartala PS mobile Duty Staff i.e., the respondent herein. It was stated that Saikat Saha was arrested for creating a public nuisance and disturbing public peace and tranquility at Dhaleshwar Road under the influence of liquor. But it went on to state:

               “Despite the victim’s own conduct, the allegations made by the complainant, supported by medical evidence and witness statements prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences by the accused Rabindranath Ghosh.”

24. Only after this Court entertained the Writ Petition on 06.05.2026, an FIR EAG No.46 was registered on 7.5.2026 against Rabindranath Ghosh and Joy Debnath, that too only under Sections 117(2)/351(2)/3(5) of the BNS on 07.05.2026 without mentioning his alleged demand for illegal gratification made to the petitioner/her son.

The order dt.13.5.2026 in W.P.(Crl).No.06 of 2026:

25. The Court on 13.5.2026 suspected that the arrest of Saikat Saha on 4.4.2026 by the respondent was probably in violation of the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar (1 Supra) and directed registration of this Contempt Case suo motu against him.

The order dt.14.5.2026 in W.P.(Crl).No.06 of 2026:

26. On 14.5.2026, by placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Bharati Tamang v. Union of India ((2013) 15 SCC 578), Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana ((2016) 4 SCC 160) etc., in order to ensure fair and proper investigation, this Court directed investigation into both FIR EAG No.38 dt.07.04.2026 and also FIR EAG No.46 dt.07.05.2026 by a Special Investigation Team headed by an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, two or three officials of the Tripura Police Crime Branch to be nominated by the DGP, Tripura and the Superintendent of Police of Khowai District under supervision of an officer of IG Rank to be nominated by the DGP, Tripura. This Court also directed that no police officer attached to the West Tripura District shall be associated with the investigation.

27. The investigation by the SIT constituted by this Court is ongoing.

The SIT report dt.16.6.2026 of the Inspector General of Police, Crime, Tripura, Agartala:

28. The IG associated as supervising authority to the SIT filed a report dt.16.6.2026 stating that during investigation, the CCTV footage collected from the East Agartala Police Station was carefully analysed, that during such analysis of the footage, it was seen that the victim Saikat Saha was assaulted by Rabindranath Ghosh and Joy Debnath inside the Police Station premises.

29. It further revealed that statements of witnesses corroborate that Rabindranath Ghosh telephoned Saikat Saha and demanded Rs.2 lakhs as a condition for allowing the construction to resume and that failure to pay would result in the construction being stopped indefinitely. It stated that Saikat Saha refused to pay and the subsequent assault and intimidation against him was a direct consequence of this refusal. It states that around 10 pm and 10.30 pm on 4.4.2026, there were heated telephone calls between Saikat Saha and Rabindranath Ghosh, and on being informed of this telephonic altercation, the East Agartala Police Station deployed the respondent to attend the matter and verify facts. Upon reaching the rented house of Smt. Ratna Roy at Dhaleshwar road, the respondent found Rabindranath Ghosh present there and he was engaged in a heated altercation with Saikat Saha which had escalated into a physical scuffle. It is stated that Saikat Saha was found by respondent to be in a intoxicated condition and he arrested him under the provisions of the Tripura police Act and brought him to the police station. In the police station, Saikat Saha, as per the CCTV footage was subjected to severe physical assault by Rabindranath Ghosh and Joy Debnath – by kicks, blows and slaps.

The subsequent counter affidavit filed by respondents in W.P.(Crl).No.6 of 2026:

30. The subsequent counter affidavit filed by the respondents in the Writ Petition (Crl.) No.6 of 2026 on 22.6.2026 brings out that the accused Rabindranath Ghosh and Joy Debnath have since been arrested, and later their services were also terminated by their respective employers.

31. As regards the respondent is concerned, who arrested Saikat Saha, it is stated that he was also issued a show cause notice on 6.6.2026, and since his reply thereto was not found satisfactory, he was placed under suspension w.e.f 14.6.2026 and departmental proceedings were initiated against him.

This Contempt Case:

32. After the above events are looked at, the question to be considered is:

               “Whether the arrest of Sri Saikat Saha by the respondent on 4.4.2026 at 11 pm is justified and whether there was any violation of the guidelines issued in the Supreme Court judgment in Arnesh Kumar (1 supra)?”

33. The respondent’s defence to his action in arresting Sri Saikat Saha is that on 4.4.2026 at 2305 hrs., while he along with Police Station staff was performing vehicular mobile duty at Dhaleshwar road no.11 area, Sri Saikat Saha was noticed as creating a hue and cry, that local people detained him and he was manhandled by them.

               He alleges that Saikat Saha was using filthy language with violent mood under influence of liquor and had created a disturbance to public peace and tranquillity.

               He stated that he initially tried to control him, and after the latter became violent, finding no other alternative to prevent commission of cognizable offence, he arrested him invoking Section 90(2) of the Tripura Police Act and Section 355 of BNS,2023 following the mandate of Section 35(1) (b) (ii) (a) of BNSS. He contends that after arrest, he arranged medical examination of Saikat Saha by Medical officer of IGM Hospital, Agartala, and after medical examination when doctor opined that he has consumed alcohol, but can take care of himself, he brought Saikat Saha to PS custody.

               He claims that he offered him bail, that Saikat Saha failed to submit bail bond, that he informed Smt.Ratna Roy and her family members and they sent one Nantu Saha next morning, who prayed for release of Saikat Saha on bail as the offence was bailable, and so he released him on bail.

               He stated that he later filed a police report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala. He claims that a police officer can arrest any person to prevent him from committing any further offence. According to him, if he had not arrested Saikat Saha, he might have committed any cognizable offence as he was in a violent mood in an intoxicated condition.

34. We shall examine the correctness of these pleas in the light of the report dt.16.6.2026 of the IG (Crimes), Agartala supervising the SIT and also the counter affidavits filed in the W.P.(Crl.) No.6 of 2026 by the respondents therein and the material papers filed along with the said counter affidavits.

35. Along with the counter affidavit dt.11.5.2026, the Under Secretary to Home Department , Govt. of Tripura has filed as Annexure R-13, copy of GD Entry made EAG PS GDE No.35 dt.04/04/2026 against Sri Saikat Saha, which states as under: