ORDER : 1. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter for brevity 'the Act of 1971') and also read with para 11.7 of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 , this contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner herein for punishing the contemnors herein herein for wilfully disobeying the direction issued in the matter of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and arresting the petitioner in violation of direction so issued therein. 2. The instant contempt petition has been filed on following factual backdrop:- 2.1 On the complaint made by one Amit Jaiswal, complainant therein, FIR No. 172/2023 at Police Station Pandri, District Raipur, C.G. for offence punishable under Section 384 of the IPC [the said offence is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both] was registered on 02.06.2023 at 9:30 pm and petitioner was arrested immediately thereafter and produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur on 03.06.2023 and judicial remand was sought and granted till 16.06.2023. According to the contempt petitioner in the remand form under Section 167(2) of the CrPC mentioned that reason for arrest, as sufficient evidence is available against the petitioner for his arrest for offence under Section 384 of the IPC. The learned Magistrate by its order dated 03.06.2023 recording his satisfaction qua the arrest of the petitioner herein and granted remand till 16.06.2023. Thereafter, on 20.07.2023 the petitioner applied for copy of checklist which was prepared under Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC, as recorded in order sheet dated 03.06.2023, however, it was informed to him (petitioner herein) vide Ex.C/4 that no check list is available along with the remand form. Thereafter, on 20.07.2023 the petitioner applied for copy of checklist which was prepared under Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC, as recorded in order sheet dated 03.06.2023, however, it was informed to him (petitioner herein) vide Ex.C/4 that no check list is available along with the remand form. It is the case of the petitioner that the mandate issued by the Supreme Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar (supra) in terms of arrest has not been complied with and he has been illegally arrested by the respondents herein and the learned Magistrate has also a most mechanical manner authorised and granted judicial remand of the petitioner herein noting therein that checklist has been attached in the remand case which is highly arbitrary and contrary to law and violates the petitioner’s fundamental right envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Since there is no reason recorded / checklist furnished for his (petitioner) arrest as per Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC, an offence punishable only for 3 years. In that view of the matter in the light of directions issued by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar (supra) in paragraph No.11.7, the respondents are liable to be punished for contempt of Court and also liable to be punished departmentally. 3. Joint return has been filed on behalf of the respondents herein stating inter-alia that on the complaint made by Mr. Amit Jaiswal, an offence bearing Crime No. 172/2023 for commission of offence under Section 384 of the IPC was registered by the Police of Police Station Pandri against the petitioner herein on 02.06.2023. Having found that petitioner has extorted money illegally, then under the authority of CSP Civil Line, Raipur, a team was constituted to conduct raid into the office of the petitioner and the Police has made the raid at the office of the petitioner where the petitioner was caught red handed while taking money from complainant Amit Jaiswal. Since the petitioner has been caught red handed while taking money from the complainant, the police has rightly arrested the petitioner for the said commission of offence. 4. Since the petitioner has been caught red handed while taking money from the complainant, the police has rightly arrested the petitioner for the said commission of offence. 4. It has also been submitted that adhering to the direction of the Supreme Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar (supra), checklist containing the reasons for arrest of the petitioner in connection with the Crime No.172/2023 has been prepared by the Police and the same was prepared on 02.06.2023 before arresting the petitioner. Petitioner was produced before the learned Magistrate on 03.06.2023 at 3:10 pm and the judicial remand of the petitioner was granted till 16.06.2023 by learned Magistrate on application under Section 167(2) of the CrPC made by the Police after having satisfied and considering the checklist attached with the case diary and the same has been recorded in the order sheet dated 03.06.2023 by learned Judicial Magistrate, as such, the direction issued by the Supreme Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar (supra) has been complied with in its letter and spirit and the contempt case deserves to be dropped. 5. Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that respondents have illegally arrested the petitioner in wilful violation of the direction issued by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of the Arnesh Kumar (supra), even if, it is accepted that checklist was prepared, which the petitioner has also filed on 15th December, 2023 before this Court, but, infirmities would show in the checklist and direction contained in the decision rendered by the Supreme Court the matter of Arnesh Kumar (supra) relying with Section 41 along with Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC has not been complied with in its letter and spirit and immediately after registration of offence petitioner has been arrested, which is the gross and wilful violation of the direction issued by the Supreme Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar (supra). As such, the respondents deserve to be punished for non-complying the direction issued by the Supreme Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar (supra). 6. Mr. As such, the respondents deserve to be punished for non-complying the direction issued by the Supreme Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar (supra). 6. Mr. Rahul Jha, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that finding the offence punishable under Section 384 of the IPC having been made out against the petitioner and he was arrested on 02.06.2023 and produced before the Magistrate on 03.06.2023 seeking judicial remand under Section 167(2) of the CrPC which was granted by the Magistrate after having satisfied that the checklist is attached with the case diary and, as such, the contempt petition deserves to be dropped as directions issued by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar (supra) at paragraph No. 11.7 has been complied with in its letter and spirit. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. To consider as to whether the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar (supra) has been wilfully violated or complied with and case for civil contempt is made out in terms of Section 2(b) read with Section 12 of the Act, 1971. It would be appropriate to notice Section 41 of the CrPC which states as under:- “41. When police may arrest without warrant. It would be appropriate to notice Section 41 of the CrPC which states as under:- “41. When police may arrest without warrant. - (1) Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person- (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence 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, if the following conditions are satisfied, namely:- (i) the police officer has reason to believe on the basis of such complaint, information, or suspicion that such person has committed the said offence; (ii) the police office is satisfied that such arrest is necessary - (a) to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or (b) for proper investigation of the offence; or (c) to prevent such person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or (d) to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer; or (e) as unless such person is arrest, his presence in the Court whenever required cannot be ensured, and the police officer shall record while making such arrest, his reasons in writing. [Provided that a police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of this sub-section, record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest]” 9. The aforesaid provision makes it compulsory for the Police to record the reason for making arrest as well as for not making arrest in respect of cognizable offence for which maximum sentence is of upto 7 years. The aforesaid provision contained in Section 41(1)(b) of CrPC came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and their Lordships held in paragraph Nos. 7.1 to 7.3 as under:- 7.1. The aforesaid provision contained in Section 41(1)(b) of CrPC came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and their Lordships held in paragraph Nos. 7.1 to 7.3 as under:- 7.1. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that a person accused of offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer only on its satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. A Police officer before arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the police officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured. These are the conclusions, which one may reach based on facts. 7.2. The law mandates the police officer to state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid, while making such arrest. The law further requires the police officers to record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest. 7.3.In pith and core, the police officer before arrest must put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required? What purpose it will serve? What object it will achieve? It is only after these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. In fine, before arrest first the police officers should have reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or the more purposes envisaged by sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.PC. 10. Apart from this, the police officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or the more purposes envisaged by sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.PC. 10. As such, their Lordships have clearly held that before arrest first the police officers should have reason to believe that on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. It has further been held by their Lordships that apart from this, the police officer has to be satisfied that the arrest is necessary for one or the more purposes envisaged by sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section 41 of the CrPC. 11. Further their Lordships in the matter of Arnesh Kumar (supra) has held that to ensure that the police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and the Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically and issued the directions and further held that failure to comply with the directions aforesaid issued 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 the High Court having territorial jurisdiction and held in paragraph 11.1 to 12 as under:- “11. 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 directions: 11.1. All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Cr.PC; 11.2. All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b) (ii); 11.3. The police officer shall forward the check list duly filled and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention; 11.4. 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; 11.5. 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; 11.5. 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; 11.6. Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A 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; 11.7. 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 the High Court having territorial jurisdiction. 11.8. Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court. 12. We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A IPC 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.” 12. As such, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that before arresting the accused, police officers should have reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence and apart from that, police officer has to be satisfied that the arrest is necessary for one or the more purposes envisaged by sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section 41 of the CrPC and police officers shall record their reasons while making such arrest. 13. Furthermore, the principles of law laid down in the matter of Arnesh Kumar (supra) has been followed with approval by their Lordships of the Supreme Court recently in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51 . 13. Furthermore, the principles of law laid down in the matter of Arnesh Kumar (supra) has been followed with approval by their Lordships of the Supreme Court recently in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51 . Their Lordships in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) while noticing the mandate issued in the Arnesh Kumar (supra) have held that both the elements of “reasons to believe” and “satisfaction qua an arrest” are mandatory and accordingly are to be recorded by the police officer and further emphasised that the Courts to come heavily on the officers effecting arrest without due compliance of Section 41 and Section 41-A of the CrPC and held as under:- 29. Despite the dictum of this Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra), no concrete step has been taken to comply with the mandate of Section 41-A of the Code. This Court has clearly interpreted Section 41(1)(b)(i) and (ii) inter alia holding that notwithstanding the existence of a reason to believe qua a police officer, the satisfaction for the need to arrest shall also be present. Thus, sub-clause (1)(b)(i) of Section 41 has to be read along with sub-clause (ii) and therefore both the elements of “reason to believe” and “satisfaction qua an arrest” are mandated and accordingly are to be recorded by the police officer. 30. It is also brought to our notice that there are no specific guidelines with respect to the mandatory compliance of Section 41-A of the Code. An endeavour was made by the Delhi High Court while deciding Writ Petition (C) No. 7608 of 2017 vide order dated 07-02-2018, [Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13448], followed by order dated 28-10-2021 in Rakesh Kumar v. Vijayanta Arya, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5629, wherein not only the need for guidelines but also the effect of non-compliance towards taking action against the officers concerned was discussed. We also take note of the fact that a Standing Order has been passed by Delhi Police viz. Standing Order 109 of 2020, which provides for a set of guidelines in the form of procedure for issuance of notices or orders by the police officers. We also take note of the fact that a Standing Order has been passed by Delhi Police viz. Standing Order 109 of 2020, which provides for a set of guidelines in the form of procedure for issuance of notices or orders by the police officers. Considering the aforesaid action taken, in due compliance with the order passed by the Delhi High Court in Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT of Delhi) dated 07-02-2018, this Court has also passed an order in Abhyanand Sharma v. State of Bihar, (2022) 10 SCC 819 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 784, dated 10-05-2021 (sic 10-5-2022) directing the State of Bihar to look into the said aspect of an appropriate modification to give effect to the mandate of Section 41-A. A recent judgment has also been rendered on the same lines by the High Court of Jharkhand in Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 SCC OnLine Jhar 620, dated 16-06-2022. 31. Thus, we deem it appropriate to direct all the State Governments and the Union Territories to facilitate Standing Orders while taking note of the Standing Order issued by the Delhi Police i.e., Standing Order 109 of 2020, to comply with the mandate of Section 41-A. We do feel that this would certainly take care of not only the unwarranted arrests, but also the clogging of bail applications before various courts as they may not even be required for the offences up to seven years. 32. We also expect the courts to come down heavily on the officers effecting arrest without due compliance of Section 41 and Section 41-A. We express our hope that the investigating agencies would keep in mind the law laid down in Arnesh Kumar (supra), the discretion to be exercised on the touchstone of presumption of innocence, and the safeguards provided under Section 41, since an arrest is not mandatory. If discretion is exercised to effect such an arrest, there shall be procedural compliance. Our view is also reflected by the interpretation of the specific provision under Section 60-A of the Code which warrants the officer concerned to make the arrest strictly in accordance with the Code. 14. If discretion is exercised to effect such an arrest, there shall be procedural compliance. Our view is also reflected by the interpretation of the specific provision under Section 60-A of the Code which warrants the officer concerned to make the arrest strictly in accordance with the Code. 14. Reverting to the facts of the case in the light of the principles of law laid down and direction issued by their Lordships in the matter of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and followed in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), it is quite vivid that information as to commission of offence was received by the police on 02.06.2023 at 9:30 as per FIR (Annexure C/2) for offence under Section 384 of the IPC and time during which offence is said to have been committed is 01.03.2023 to 31.05.2023 and immediately on the same day i.e. 02.06.2023 petitioner was arrested and the remand was sought from the learned Magistrate on 03.06.2023, which was granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 03.06.2023 (Annexure C/3). The following reasons have been accorded by the learned Magistrate, which state as under:- ^^dsl Mk;jh ds voyksdu ls vfHk;qDr ds /kkjk 384 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds vkjksih esa canh cuk;k x;k gSA dsl Mk;jh ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd çdj.k esa psd fyLV layXu gS rFkk vkjksih ds fo:} çkIr lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij vUos"k.k gsrq i;kZIr ,oa n`ढ+ vk/kkj fo|eku gSA vijk/k dh çd`fr vkSj vUos"k.k dh vko';drk dks ns[krs gq, n.M çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 57 esa fu/kkZfjr dkykof/k esa foospuk iw.kZ fd;k tkuk lEHko ugha gSA QyLo:i U;kf;d fjekaM Lohdkj fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr Árhr gksrk gSa vr% ÁLrqr U;kf;d fjekaM vkosnu i= eatwj dj vfHk;qDr@vfHk;qDrx.k U;kf;d fjekaM fnukad 16-06-2023 rd ds fy, Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA vfHk;qDr dks U;kf;d vfHkj{k esa fy;k x;k] vfHk;qDr dk tsy okjaV cukdj] mUgsa dsUnzh; tsy jk;iqj Hkstk tkosA mifLFr vkj{kd dks tsy okjaV] vkjksih ,oa dsl Mk;jh lfgr lkSik tkdj] vkns'k if=dk ij ikorh yh tkosA Ádj.k vfHk;ksx i= ÁLrqfr gsrq fnukad 16-06-2023-** 15. The learned Magistrate has noted that the checklist is enclosed with the case diary and there is sufficient ground for investigation and ultimately granted judicial remand upto to 16.03.2023. The learned Magistrate has noted that the checklist is enclosed with the case diary and there is sufficient ground for investigation and ultimately granted judicial remand upto to 16.03.2023. However, it is the case of the petitioner that there is no checklist available in the case diary, subsequently, a copy of checklist has been prepared by the petitioner and it is available along with the charge-sheet and filed by the contempt petitioner before this Court on 15.12.2023 which states as under:- ^^bl Ádj.k ls iqfyl vf/kdkjh@foospuk vf/kdkjh dks lek/kku gks x;k fd vkjksih dh fxjrkjh vko';d gS] D;ksafd%& 01- vkjksih dks vkSj fdlh vijk/k ds dkfjr djus ls fuokfjr djus ds fy, & gk¡ 02- vijk/k ds mfpr vUos"k.k ds fy, & gk¡ 03- vkjksih ds vijk/k dh lk{; dks feVkus ;k NsM+&NkM+ djus ls fuokfjr djus ds fy, & gk¡ 04- vkjksih ekeys ds rF;ksa ls ifjfpr fdlh O;fDr dks ÁyksHku nsus] /kedh nsus ;k ok;nk djus ls fuokfjr djus ds fy,] rkfd vkjksih ,sls rF;ksa dks U;k;ky; ;k iqfyl vf/kdkjh dks ÁdV u djs & gk¡ 05- vkjksih dks fxjrkj ugha fd;k tkrk gS] rks mldh mifLFkfr U;k;ky; esa lqfuf'pr ugha dh tk ldrh & gk¡ LFkku & fnukad & 02-06-2023 ,lMh@& Fkkuk ÁkHkkjh Fkkuk i.Mjh ¼eksok½ ftyk & jk;iqj ¼N-x-½** 16. A careful perusal of the aforesaid checklist would show that the police officers /contemnors have stated that the arrest of the petitioner is necessary to prevent the accused for committing any further offence and for proper investigation and to prevent such person from causing evidence of offence to disappear or tampering with the such evidence in any manner and to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to this police officer and as unless such person is arrested, his presence in the Court whenever required cannot be ensured. 17. 17. However, a careful perusal of the aforesaid checklist would also show, so far as compliance of clauses (a) to (e) of Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC has been answered mechanically by the contemnors and in checklist no basis for recording the said information has been assigned as it is not the case of the respondents / contemnors that petitioner is a confirmed criminal or a known gangster and he will not comply and his arrest is absolutely necessary. Furthermore, the compliance of the second part of Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC that the police officer had not recorded the reasons in writing why the arrest of the petitioner was necessary. As such, there is a total non-compliance of the provisions contained in Section 41(1)(b) (ii)(a) to (e) of the CrPC, no reason has been recorded while making his (petitioner herein) arrest in writing that why his (petitioner herein)arrest is necessary, particularly when the offence punishable under Section 384 of the IPC [the said offence is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both] and the learned Magistrate also did not look into the checklist properly and the mandate of the Supreme Court, direction issued in the matter of Arnesh Kumar (supra) reiterated in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) and mechanically granted judicial remand in cyclostyled order. As such, I am satisfied that prima-facie there is a wilful violation of the mandate issued by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar (supra) followed in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) by arresting the petitioner herein without following the provisions contained in Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC. Therefore, while admitting this contempt petition, I hold that it is fit case for framing charge against the respondents herein and accordingly, it is directed that all the respondents shall appear before this Court either personally or through advocate(s) duly instructed by them on 9th of February, 2024 for framing charge.