Court’s Duty to see citizens not harassed by arresting them in petty offences carrying punishment less than 7 years: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that it is the Court’s Duty to see citizens not harassed by arresting them in petty offences carrying punishment less than 7 years.
Background
The petitioner is connected with mainstream electronic media news channel, namely, TV5 Telugu news. This writ petition has been preferred seeking direction to the respondents not to foist cases on media personnel or social media users in a cavalier manner or sans concrete evidence corroborating the prima facie involvement of the alleged perpetrators in the crime; to direct the respondents to forthwith upload a copy of the First Information Report within 24 hours from the lodging of a report and further to direct them to strictly follow the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, in all cases registered by them henceforth without fail.
Decision
The division bench of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and A.V. Sesha Sai noted that the petitioner is not praying for quashing of the criminal cases registered against the T.V. channel. The prayer is only for a direction to the respondents not to foist cases in a cavalier manner without concrete evidence and to direct the Police to follow the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar.
The court stated that there can be no general direction to the respondents not to foist false cases, because ordinarily investigating agency is presumed to perform its duties in accordance with law and each case is to be considered on the basis of its own facts. However, at the same time, it is the duty of the Court to see that citizens are not harassed by arresting them in petty offences carrying punishment less than 7 years.
Since the law declared by the Supreme Court is already operative in the field, the court reiterated the same and observed that the same shall be followed scrupulously in all sincerity by the police officers.
The court directed all the Judicial Magistrates to record their satisfaction before authorizing detention, in exercise of powers under Section 167 Cr.P.C and said that while doing so, the Judicial Magistrates are expected to apply their mind objectively in the obtaining facts of the case and pass a reasoned order. Any negligence in this regard shall be viewed seriously and the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the High Court as and when such defective detention authorization orders are brought to the notice of the High Court by or on behalf of the accused.
Case title: Bollineni Rajagopal Naidu v/s The State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.132 of 2021
