The High Court delivered a significant judgment regarding the unlawful arrest and detention of a journalist, emphasizing the need for strict compliance with the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.

1. Petition and Relief Sought

• The petitioner, a journalist, challenged his arrest and detention under FIR No. 24 of 2022, registered with Vakola Police Station.
• He sought a declaration of his arrest and detention as illegal, compensation of Rs. 5 crore, and an investigation into the alleged illegal actions of the police.

2. Facts of the Case

• The petitioner was arrested on 15th January 2022 under Sections 384 and 506 of the IPC.
• The petitioner was produced before the holiday court on 16th January 2022, where the Magistrate remanded him to judicial custody, noting the non-compliance with the Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

3. Arguments Presented

• Petitioner’s Counsel: Argued that the arrest was illegal as the offenses were not severe, and the police failed to provide notice under Section 41A of the CrPC. The arrest was allegedly made to humiliate and harass the petitioner, violating his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Respondent’s Counsel: Defended the arrest, citing the petitioner’s non-cooperation and justifying the detention as lawful.

4. Legal Framework and Guidelines

• The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, emphasizing the requirement for the police to justify arrests with recorded reasons, particularly in cases where the alleged offenses are punishable by imprisonment of up to seven years.

5. Court’s Observations

• The court found that the arrest was made without proper justification and in violation of the procedures outlined in Section 41 and 41A of the CrPC.
• The Magistrate's casual approach in remanding the petitioner to custody was also criticized, reflecting non-application of mind.

6. Judgment

• The High Court declared the petitioner’s arrest and detention illegal, highlighting the failure of the police to adhere to mandatory guidelines.
• The court emphasized that the arrest and subsequent detention had caused unnecessary humiliation and curtailment of the petitioner's liberty, warranting compensation and further scrutiny.