Arrested despite protection: Telangana High Court jails police officer for 1 month

“The explanation offered by respondent No.1 (police officer) for his alleged lack of knowledge of the orders passed by this Court is not satisfactory, particularly when he was admittedly aware of the initial order granting protection to the petitioner and failed to verify the subsequent status of the proceedings or the orders passed by this Court, including from the official website,” the order read.

Justice K Sujana awarded a one-month jail term to the police officer.

Why court awarded one-month sentence?

The petitioner was an accused in a case registered at Saroor nagar police station in a dowry death case. He had approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail. On April 21, the court directed the investigating officer not to arrest him until April 23. The protection was subsequently extended on April 23 and again on April 27.

The petitioner said that he was undergoing treatment in a hospital. He alleged that the police officials pressured the hospital, doctors and staff to discharge him so that he could be arrested despite the court’s protection. He further alleged that on April 28, the hospital authorities were compelled to discharge him and he was taken to the police station and arrested.

The accused was subsequently produced before a magistrate for remand. His counsel brought the High Court’s interim orders to the magistrate’s notice, following which the magistrate rejected the remand and directed his release.

The prosecution argued that the police officer who arrested the petitioner was unaware that the interim protection had been extended. It said neither the petitioner nor his counsel had furnished him a copy of the extension order or otherwise informed him of its subsistence before the arrest. The officer also tendered an unconditional apology, saying the arrest was neither intentional nor wilful.

The high court rejected this explanation. It noted that the officer was aware of the initial April 21 order protecting the petitioner from arrest and therefore was required to ascertain whether the protection had been extended. The court said that when petitioner’s counsel informed the officer about the order, he should have verified it with the public prosecutor or through the High Court’s official website before proceeding with the arrest.

“When respondent No.1 physically appeared before this Court, his explanation was that he was not aware of the order and there was pressure in the said case to arrest the petitioner which fortifies the contention of the petitioner herein. Accordingly, the explanation offered by respondent No.1 cannot be accepted,” the order read.

The court held that the police officer wilfully disobeyed the orders passed by the court and thus sentenced him to one month in prison and a fine of Rs 2,000.