1. In this writ petition as filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the writ petitioner is aggrieved with the inaction of the police authorities for not taking appropriate action against some police officials on account of their alleged willful disobedience regarding the binding guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2014 (8) SCC 273 and in the case of D. K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 1997 (1) SCC 416.

2. At the time of hearing Mr. U. Partha Sarathi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this court to page No. 31 to 34 of the instant writ petition being a copy of formal FIR No. 19 dated 20.05.2021 of Campbell Bay police station under Sections 32 of Andaman Excise Rules, 1934 & Regulation 3 of 1876, Section 188 of Indian Penal Code and Section 51 (b) of Disaster Management Act, 2005 wherein the present writ petitioner has been arrayed as an accused. It is submitted by Mr. U. Partha Sarathi that it is the case of the present writ petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the said PS case No. 19 of 2021 which is why under cover of his letter dated 07.06.2021 he has sought for certain informations from the police authorities and being not satisfied with the answers to such Right To Information application he has preferred an appeal before the appellant authority as it would be evident from the page No.21 to 23 of the instant writ petition.

3. It is submitted that it is the further case of the writ petitioner that the present writ petitioner was subsequently again falsely implicated in connection with Campbell Bay police station case No. 30 of 2021 under sections 457/354/323/506/509/34 of Indian Penal Code wherein the writ petitioner was arrested and produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that in connection with the Campbell Bay police station case No. 30/2021 the maximum sentence prescribed for the offences as involved in the said case is seven (7) years and despite that the writ petitioner was not served with notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. and without recording any reasons the Investigating Officer of the said P.S. Case arrested the present writ petitioner violating the dicta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra). In support of his contention Mr. U. Partha Sarathi draws attention of this court to page No.10 of the Affidavit in reply of the writ petitioner. It is submitted that from the certified copy of G.R. Case No. 73 of 2023 arising out of Campbell Bay police station case No. 30/2021 it would reveal that a report has been given by the appropriate authority that grounds of arrest were not found with the record.

4. It is further submitted by Mr. U. Partha Sarathi that it is the further case of the writ petitioner that in connection with the Campbell Bay police station case No. 30/2021 the writ petitioner was subjected to enormous custody violence as would be evident from the injury report dated 06.08.2021 (a copy of which is annexed at page No. 140 of the writ petition).

5. Drawing further attention of this court to page No. 11 to 15 of the affidavit in reply as filed by the writ petitioner, it is further submitted by Mr. U. Partha Sarathi that in connection with Campbell Bay police station case No. 65 of 2022 dated 06.02.2022 wherein the writ petitioner’s father Shri P. Selvam was the complainant/informant as initiated under Sections 354/341/323/ 504/506/509/34 of Indian Penal Code notice under Section 31 (A) Cr.P.C. was served upon the accused.

6. It is submitted by Mr. U. Partha Sarathi that it is the specific case of the writ petitioner that since the writ petitioner raised his voice against the illegal action of the police authorities and did not fulfill the illegal demand of the some errant police personnel the writ petitioner had to suffer a lot which was reported to the respondent authorities but in vain. It is thus submitted that for non-compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra) and D.K. Basu (Supra) appropriate punitive action may be taken against the erred police officials in accordance with law.

7. Per Contra, Mr. Karmakar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State as well as the police administration submits before this court that there was no malafide on the part of the police authorities in lodging two FIRs against the writ petitioner in view of the fact the police authorities found sufficient materials regarding commission of cognizable offence by the writ petitioner. It is further submitted by Mr. Karmakar that no material has been placed before this Court that the writ petitioner was subjected to custodial violence.

8. It is further argued by Mr. Karmakar that in connection with Campbell Bay police station case No. 30 of 2021 dated 05.08.2021 the writ petitioner was arrested in accordance with the procedure.

9. On careful perusal of the entire materials as placed before this court and after hearing learned Advocates for the contending parties this court finds that the writ petitioner has miserably failed to place any prima facie materials to show that he was subjected to custodial violence in connection with the Campbell Bay police station case No. 30 of 2021 dated 05.08.2021 inasmuch as page No. 140 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the injury report dated 06.08.2004 does not prima facie suggests any bodily injury in the person of the writ petitioner except a small superficial cut injury inside his mouth.

10. Admittedly in the offences as involved in Campbell Bay police station case No. 30 of 2021 dated 05.08/2021 the maximum punishment prescribed is below the seven (7) years and therefore the investigating officer of Campbell Bay police station case No. 30 of 2021 dated 05.08.2021 is duty bound to abide by the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra) which is quoted in below in verbative :

               “Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction:

               All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC;

               All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);

               The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;

               The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;

               The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

               Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC 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 the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

               Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

               We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.”

11. At the time of hearing Mr. Karmakar though contended that in Campbell Bay Police Station case No. 30 of 2021 dated 05.08.2021 arrest of the accused (writ petitioner) was made after satisfaction of the statutory requirements under Section 41 Cr.P.C, this court finds no document apart from the pleading in paragraph No. 12 of the affidavit-in-opposition to substantiate the same.

12. It is settled principle of law that in a writ petition a party has both to plead and to adduce evidence. In this case no prima facie evidence has been produced to show compliance of the statutory requirements as embodied in the judgement of Arnesh Kumar (Supra). On the contrary the writ petitioner by placing reliance upon the page No. 10 of the affidavit in reply placed some material to substantiate that in G.R. Case No. 73 of 2023 arising out of Campbell Bay police station case No. 30 of 2021 grounds of arrest were not found with the record.

13. In view of such, this Court while disposing the instant writ petition directs the respondent No.3 authority to conduct an enquiry either by himself or by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police of Car Nicobar, Nicobar District, Andaman and Nicobar Islands in order to ascertain as to whether while arresting the writ petitioner in connection with Campbell Bay police station case No. 30 of 2021 dated 05.08.2021 the aforementioned Dicta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra) has at all been followed by the investigating officer of the said case.

14. The enquiry officer of the said proceeding while conducting the said enquiry shall positively record the version of the writ petitioner and/or any other stake holder, if there be any.

15. It is further directed that in the event on conclusion of such enquiry the said enquiry officer noticed non-compliance of the Dicta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra) the enquiry officer (if the enquiry officer is not Superintendent of Police, Car Nicobar, Nicobar District, Andaman and Nicobar Islands) he is directed to submit such report with the respondent No.3 authority and the respondent No.3 authority is directed to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent forthwith.

16. The enquiry proceeding as directed herein above shall have to be concluded by the enquiry officer within 90 working days from the date of communication of the server copy of this judgement.

17. The time limit as fixed by the court is peremptory and mandatory.

18. With the aforementioned observation WPA/388/2025 is disposed of.

19. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgement, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis on compliance of all legal formalities.