Case Background
A woman, Ruby Kumari, lodged a complaint on 03.12.2021 against three persons, including the present petitioner. She alleged that on 10.07.2021 one Kartik Kumar Sharma, her neighbour, had taken a loan of Rs. 5,20,000/- from her for personal need. As security, he issued two cheques bearing Nos. 507316 and 507317 for the same amount.
According to her, Kartik Kumar Sharma promised to return the amount by September 2021. When he did not repay, a Panchayati was convened. In that Panchayati, all three accused, including the petitioner and one Chandeshwari Sharma, assured that the money would be repaid by 03.10.2021, failing which the informant could present the cheques in the bank.
When the amount was not repaid by 03.10.2021, the informant presented the cheques. Both were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. She then sent two legal notices dated 11.10.2021 and 03.11.2021 to the accused, but there was neither repayment nor any reply.
On 24.11.2021 at about 9 p.m., all the F.I.R.-named accused, including the petitioner, allegedly went to her house, assaulted her (“dashed”) and threatened her with dire consequences. On this basis, an F.I.R. was registered as Supaul P.S. Case No. 821 of 2021 under Sections 341, 323, 354, 506, 420, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The complaint case was earlier sent to the concerned police station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., leading to registration of the F.I.R. On 12.02.2022, the Investigating Officer arrested the petitioner and the co-accused and produced them before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Supaul, who was then In-charge Chief Judicial Magistrate.
On that first production date, the Magistrate refused to remand the petitioner and another co-accused to custody, citing non-compliance with Sections 41 and 41A Cr.P.C. and absence of the Investigating Officer. The next day, 13.02.2022, after a forwarding letter and documents were filed by the Investigating Officer, the same Magistrate remanded them to judicial custody till 24.02.2022.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court in Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 1610 of 2023, seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against several State officials, including senior Home and Law Department officers, DGP, local police officers, and the then In-charge C.J.M. He alleged deliberate and wilful disobedience of the Supreme Court’s directions in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and illegal detention in judicial custody.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench of the Patna High Court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. B. Pd. Singh, authoring the judgment) first noted the precise complaint of the petitioner: he claimed that by not issuing notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. within two weeks from the date of receipt of the complaint and by arresting him without proper satisfaction under Section 41(1) Cr.P.C., the respondents had violated the law laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, and hence committed contempt of court.
To assess this, the Court carefully examined both the factual record and the legal standards on arrest and remand. It revisited important Supreme Court decisions on misuse of arrest powers and protection of personal liberty.
The Court referred to Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., where the Supreme Court had emphasised that no arrest should be made merely because it is lawful to do so; there must be reasonable satisfaction, after some investigation, about the genuineness of the complaint and the necessity of arrest. It highlighted the Supreme Court’s concern over rising misuse of arrest powers and balancing individual liberty with crime control.
It then recalled the detailed guidelines laid down in D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. on arrest and detention, such as proper identification of police officers, memo of arrest with witness and time, informing a friend or relative, recording entries in the station diary, medical examination, and prompt information to the Magistrate and control rooms.
The Bench quoted extensively from Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, where the Supreme Court had criticised the tendency of “arrest first and then proceed” and directed State Governments and police not to automatically arrest in offences punishable up to seven years’ imprisonment. It underlined that Section 41(1)(b) Cr.P.C. requires both reasonable belief about the offence and separate satisfaction that arrest is necessary for specific reasons, such as preventing further offences, proper investigation, preventing tampering with evidence, preventing intimidation of witnesses, or ensuring presence in court.
The judgment also referred to Dr. Rini Johar v. State of M.P., where the Supreme Court had condemned unlawful arrest and transit of two women without following due procedure, terming it an assault on dignity and liberty. Further, it cited Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, in which the Supreme Court reiterated that arrest is not mandatory even in cognizable offences and non-compliance with Section 41 Cr.P.C. should benefit the accused and influence bail decisions.
After recapping these principles, the Patna High Court turned to the concrete facts. It first analysed the refusal order dated 12.02.2022. In that order, the In-charge C.J.M. had refused remand of the petitioner and co-accused for three reasons: (i) the Investigating Officer was not present, (ii) no notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. had been issued, and (iii) the checklist and case diary had not been produced.
The Court then examined the subsequent remand order dated 13.02.2022. On that day, after receiving a forwarding letter from the Investigating Officer seeking judicial custody for at least one fortnight and after perusing the case diary, the Magistrate noted that the F.I.R. included non-bailable offences under Sections 354, 406 and 420 IPC. The Magistrate recorded that witness statements in para 10, 11, 12, 13, 26 and 38 of the case diary supported the occurrence and, on that basis, remanded the accused to judicial custody till 24.02.2022.
The High Court then carefully reviewed the case diary. It found that:
- Statements of witnesses had been recorded and entered in several paragraphs up to 13.02.2022.
- Para 33 recorded that raids were conducted at the houses of the accused, but they were not found.
- Para 38 (dated 25.01.2022) noted a direction from the supervising authority to arrest the accused after verifying their names and addresses and, if they remained absconding, to start proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C.
- Para 44 recorded that raids were conducted in compliance with this direction, but the accused were found absconding.
- Para 50 recorded that the accused were sent to court with a forwarding letter and a checklist. The checklists for each accused were prepared on 12.02.2022 in the prescribed format under Section 41(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C., as required by directions following Arnesh Kumar.
On examining the checklists themselves, the Court found that they were in the required proforma. It noted in particular that:
- In column B, the question whether arrest was necessary for recovery of relevant assets/properties was answered “Yes”.
- In column D, the question whether the accused was in a position to influence witnesses was also answered “Yes”.
The State’s counsel argued that the arrest and remand were conducted in line with directions of the Director General of Police, Bihar, issued on 28.05.2021, in compliance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Arnesh Kumar.
The High Court had also called for a report from the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Supaul. In his report dated 23.04.2025, he stated that on 13.02.2022, the In-charge C.J.M. had remanded the petitioner after treating the checklist produced by the Investigating Officer as compliance with Sections 41(1) and 41A Cr.P.C., but this fact was not mentioned in the order-sheet. Only the case diary was referred to in the remand order.
On the strength of this report and the materials, the High Court concluded that the Magistrate had, in substance, legally and correctly remanded the accused persons on 13.02.2022. However, it strongly criticised the order as being mechanical and not a speaking, reasoned order. The Bench emphasised that remand and bail orders are very important judicial acts, and Judicial Officers are “not mere post-men”. They must analyse the record and record their satisfaction regarding the need for detention.
The Court then addressed a key point raised in the earlier refusal order: the absence of the Investigating Officer at the time of first production and the practice of producing accused through constables or chaukidars. Referring to Sections 156, 158, 167 and the definition of “officer in charge of a police station” in Section 2(o) Cr.P.C., the Bench held that only the Investigating Officer or the Officer-in-Charge is empowered to forward the accused for remand. It stressed that the presence of the Investigating Officer is essential as the Magistrate may need to ask questions to properly decide on remand, which constables or chaukidars cannot answer. The practice of sending the accused only through lower-ranked staff was “highly deprecated”.
Finally, the Bench turned to the central question: whether the actions of the police and Magistrate amounted to contempt of the Supreme Court’s directions in Arnesh Kumar. It held that the observations of the Supreme Court about contempt and departmental action for non-compliance with Section 41A Cr.P.C. were meant to prevent unnecessary harassment and wrongful arrest, not to turn every dispute over remand into a contempt case.
Here, the record showed that:
- The Investigating Officer had prepared and submitted the required checklist under Section 41(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C.
- The case diary contained material justifying arrest and remand, including witness statements and evidence of the accused attempting to evade arrest.
- The Magistrate, though failing to write a detailed speaking order, had in fact considered the case diary and checklist.
On this basis, the Court held that there was sufficient material for remand, and the petitioner had “misconstrued the scope of the legal provision as well as the observation of the Apex Court” in filing this contempt petition. Therefore, there was no deliberate or wilful disobedience to justify contempt proceedings.
However, the Bench did not ignore the systemic problems revealed by the case. It noted that despite the Supreme Court’s directions in Arnesh Kumar in 2014, Judicial Officers in Bihar were still sidestepping them. Referring also to a coordinate Bench’s earlier direction in Kundan Kumar v. State of Bihar (Cr. WJC No. 1703 of 2019) to train Magistrates on dealing with remand applications, the Court issued fresh directions.
The Registrar General of the Patna High Court was directed to:
- Communicate this order to all Principal District & Sessions Judges in Bihar.
- Sensitise Judicial Officers.
- Coordinate with the Director, Judicial Academy, Bihar, to impart training on strict compliance with the Supreme Court’s arrest and remand guidelines.
Separately, the Registrar General was directed to send a copy of the order to the Director General of Police, Bihar, for strict compliance with Cr.P.C. provisions on forwarding/transmitting accused for remand, ensuring the presence of the Investigating Officer or Officer-in-Charge.
Having thus clarified the law and given systemic directions, the Court concluded that no contempt was made out. It ordered that Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 1610 of 2023 “stands dropped”.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment matters for both ordinary citizens and practising lawyers in Bihar who are concerned about wrongful arrest and misuse of remand.
First, the Patna High Court reaffirms that the protections laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar, Joginder Kumar, D.K. Basu, Rini Johar and Satender Kumar Antil are alive and binding. Police must record reasons for arrest and for not arresting, use checklists, and avoid routine custody in offences punishable up to seven years.
Second, it sends a clear message to Magistrates that remand orders cannot be passed casually. They must be speaking, reasoned, and based on case diaries and checklists. Judicial Officers who treat remand as a mere formality risk judicial criticism and training directions.
Third, it clarifies for the police that accused should not be sent to court for remand through constables or chaukidars alone. The Investigating Officer or Officer-in-Charge must take responsibility, be present, and be ready to answer the Magistrate’s questions.
Fourth, for people who feel wrongfully arrested, the judgment explains that contempt proceedings against officers are reserved for clear, wilful disobedience of Supreme Court directions. Where there is some compliance and material on record, even if the order is badly drafted, contempt may not be appropriate. Instead, other remedies (like bail, quashing, or departmental complaint) may be more suitable.
Finally, the Court’s directions to the Registrar General, Judicial Academy, and DGP show that systemic training and correction—not only punishment—are key to protecting liberty and preventing misuse of arrest powers across Bihar.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Did the police and the In-charge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul, wilfully disobey the Supreme Court’s directions in Arnesh Kumar and related cases, amounting to contempt of court, by arresting and remanding the petitioner without following Sections 41 and 41A Cr.P.C.?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that sufficient material, including a checklist under Section 41(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. and supporting case diary entries, was available to justify remand. The Magistrate’s order was defective for not being speaking and reasoned, but this did not amount to deliberate or wilful disobedience. The contempt petition was therefore dropped. - Issue: What procedural safeguards must be followed by police and Magistrates when arresting and remanding an accused in offences punishable up to seven years’ imprisonment?
Answer: Police must comply with Section 41 and 41A Cr.P.C.—recording written reasons for arrest or non-arrest, using the prescribed checklist, and issuing notice of appearance where appropriate. Arrest should be made only when necessary for the reasons listed in Section 41(1)(b)(ii). Magistrates must peruse the checklist and case diary, apply their mind, and pass a speaking, reasoned remand order, not act mechanically. - Issue: Who should forward and present the accused before the Magistrate for purposes of remand during investigation?
Answer: Only the Investigating Officer or the Officer-in-Charge of the police station, as defined in Section 2(o) Cr.P.C., is empowered to transmit and forward the accused under Sections 156, 158 and 167 Cr.P.C. The practice of forwarding accused through constables or chaukidars alone is deprecated.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., 1994 (4) SCC 260
- D.K. Basu v. State of W.B.
- Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa
- State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi
- Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273
- Dr. Rini Johar & Anr v. State of M.P. & Ors
- Charu Khurana v. Union of India
- Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51
- Kundan Kumar v. State of Bihar, Cr. WJC No. 1703 of 2019 (Patna High Court)
Case Details
Case Number: Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 1610 of 2023
Case Title: Chhotu Sharma @ Chhotu Kumar Sharma v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2025(3) PLJR 451
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri; Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. B. Pd. Singh (CAV Judgment per Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. B. Pd. Singh)
Advocates:
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Advocate
- For the Opposite Parties/State: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Verma, AAG-3
Date of Judgment: 16.05.2025
CAV Date: 28.10.2024
Nature of the Case: Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case seeking initiation of contempt proceedings for alleged non-compliance with Supreme Court directions on arrest and remand; contempt petition dropped.
Link to Judgment: Click here to access the full judgment of the Patna High Court
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
