Court Directs Action Against Police Officials for Contempt of Supreme Court Mandate in Arms Act Case
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has ordered the immediate release of Sachin Arya, also known as Sachin Bhartiya, citing his arrest under the Arms Act as illegal. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Siddharth and Jai Krishna Upadhyay, found the arrest in violation of the Supreme Court's directive in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil v. C.B.I., 2026 SCC Online SC 162.
The court, hearing the habeas corpus writ petition, highlighted that the arrest was made under Sections 3 and 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, which, despite carrying a minimum sentence of two years, did not warrant arrest without proper procedure as per the Supreme Court's mandate.
The petitioner was arrested by officials of the Dhoomanganj Police Station, Prayagraj. Despite a court order issued on February 12, 2026, for his immediate release, compliance was delayed by 20 hours, prompting the court to view this as contempt of the Supreme Court's judgment. The delay in release led to the court mandating the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, to take disciplinary action against the responsible police officials within three days.
In its order, the court emphasized the importance of adhering to legal mandates and criticized the police officials for their lack of respect for the law. The court noted the unconditional apology tendered by the respondents but underscored the need for accountability and compliance with judicial orders.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring that law enforcement agencies respect legal processes and Supreme Court directives.
The Registrar (Compliance) was instructed to ensure timely communication of the court's order to the Commissioner of Police to facilitate immediate action.
The case is scheduled for further hearing on February 23, 2026, where the court expects to be apprised of the actions taken against the erring officials.
Bottom Line:
Illegal arrest in violation of Supreme Court mandate - Respondents directed to release petitioner forthwith and show cause for violating the apex court's mandate. Unconditional apology tendered by respondents, yet court holds their conduct in contempt of Supreme Court and directs Commissioner of Police to take action.
Statutory provision(s): Arms Act, 1959 Sections 3, 25(1B)(a)
