Tripura HC holds police officer guilty of contempt for unjustified arrest, imposes Rs 2,000 fine

The Tripura High Court on Thursday held a police officer guilty of contempt of court for violating the arrest guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the 2014 Arnesh Kumar judgment while arresting a youth in April this year and imposed a fine of Rs 2,000 on the erring officer.
The Court drew contempt proceedings against sub-inspector Saikat Dey, posted at East Agartala Police station after the violations came into the notice of the court while hearing of a criminal writ petition filed by Ratna Roy.
Roy in her petition alleged that her son, Saikat Saha, was illegally arrested and assaulted without any justification. According to her, he was assaulted due to a private dispute related to construction in their residence.
The division bench headed by Chief Justice MS Ram Chandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit initiated suo motu contempt proceedings on May 13 after observing that the arrest appeared to have been made in violation of the safeguards prescribed by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar.
The hearing of the case was wrapped up earlier and the judgement was reserved on June 17, 2026. The order was pronounced on Thursday.
In its order, the court noted that the Supreme Court had directed that persons accused of offences punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years should not be arrested routinely and that police officers must first satisfy themselves about the necessity of arrest. The guidelines also require the issuance of a notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure before arrest in appropriate cases.
According to the writ petition, Ratna Roy alleged that her family was constructing a G+3 building when a neighbour complained to the Agartala Municipal Corporation alleging deviations from the sanctioned plan. She claimed that after appearing before municipal authorities, no adverse order was passed.
The petitioner further alleged that municipal employee Rabindranath Ghosh and Special Police Officer Joy Debnath subsequently demanded Rs 2 lakh to allow the construction to continue. When her son allegedly refused to pay, the two, along with others, assaulted him outside their rented residence on the night of April 4 before taking him to East Agartala Police Station, where he was allegedly assaulted again.
The writ petition also alleged that despite a complaint lodged on April 6, police failed to register an FIR against the accused persons, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court seeking registration of a case and preservation of CCTV footage from the police station.
During the proceedings, the High Court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to secure the CCTV footage from East Agartala Police Station. A preliminary inquiry report submitted by the police later stated that medical records prima facie supported allegations that Saikat Saha had sustained injuries consistent with physical assault.
The court also noted that only after the writ petition was entertained was an FIR registered on May 7 against Rabindranath Ghosh and Joy Debnath.
Subsequently, the High Court constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT), headed by a Deputy Superintendent of Police and supervised by an Inspector General-rank officer, to investigate both the case registered against Saikat Saha and the case relating to the alleged assault on him.
The SIT reported that CCTV footage from the police station showed Saikat Saha being assaulted inside the police station premises by Rabindranath Ghosh and Joy Debnath after he had been brought there by the respondent police officer.
The investigation also found material indicating that a demand of Rs 2 lakh had allegedly been made before the assault and that the assault followed the refusal to pay the money.
The respondent police officer defended the arrest, claiming Saikat Saha was intoxicated, creating a public nuisance and disturbing public peace, making preventive arrest necessary under the Tripura Police Act and relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The High Court, however, found inconsistencies between the police records, the SIT findings and the general diary entries. It observed that the SIT report did not support the officer's version that Saikat Saha was creating a public disturbance or that he had been taken to hospital immediately after arrest.
The bench also questioned the credibility of a medical report relied upon by the officer, noting that it mentioned intoxication but recorded no injuries despite later medical records indicating injuries consistent with assault.
Holding that the officer failed to comply with the mandatory safeguards governing arrest and had violated the Supreme Court's directions in Arnesh Kumar, the court rejected his defence.
The court also observed that the officer, being the senior police officer present, failed to prevent the alleged assault on Saikat Saha inside the police station.
The bench found the officer guilty of contempt of court and directed him to pay a fine of Rs 2,000 within four weeks, failing which he would undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The contempt proceedings were accordingly disposed of.