Agartala: The Tripura High Court has held a police sub-inspector guilty of contempt of court for violating the Supreme Court‘s guidelines on arrest while taking a youth into custody earlier this year. The court imposed a fine of Rs 2,000 on the officer, warning that failure to pay within four weeks would result in one month’s simple imprisonment.
The contempt proceedings were initiated against sub-inspector Saikat Dey of East Agartala Police Station after the court found that the arrest of Saikat Saha in April 2026 was allegedly carried out in breach of the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in the landmark Arnesh Kumar judgment.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice MS Ram Chandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit delivered the order on Thursday after reserving its verdict on June 17. The court had taken suo motu cognisance of the issue on May 13 while hearing a criminal writ petition filed by Ratna Roy, the mother of the arrested youth.
In her petition, Roy alleged that her son was unlawfully detained and physically assaulted following a dispute linked to construction work at their residence. She further claimed that despite filing a complaint, police initially failed to register a case against those responsible.
According to the petition, the family was constructing a G+3 building when a neighbour complained to the Agartala Municipal Corporation alleging deviations from the approved building plan. Roy maintained that municipal authorities did not pass any adverse order after hearing the matter.
She alleged that municipal employee Rabindranath Ghosh and Special Police Officer Joy Debnath later demanded Rs 2 lakh to permit the construction work to continue. When Saikat Saha allegedly refused to pay, he was assaulted outside the family’s rented house on April 4 and later taken to East Agartala Police Station, where he was allegedly assaulted again.
During the proceedings, the High Court directed preservation of CCTV footage from the police station and asked the Chief Judicial Magistrate to secure the recordings. A preliminary inquiry later found that medical evidence prima facie supported allegations that the youth had suffered injuries consistent with physical assault.
The court also noted that an FIR against Rabindranath Ghosh and Joy Debnath was registered only on May 7, after the writ petition had been taken up for hearing.
To ensure an independent probe, the High Court constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a Deputy Superintendent of Police under the supervision of an Inspector General-rank officer to investigate both the criminal case against Saikat Saha and the allegations of assault.
The SIT reported that CCTV footage showed Saikat Saha being assaulted inside East Agartala Police Station by Rabindranath Ghosh and Joy Debnath after he had been brought there by the respondent police officer. The investigation also found material suggesting that the alleged assault was preceded by a demand for Rs 2 lakh, which the youth had refused to pay.
Defending his actions, the police officer claimed that Saikat Saha was intoxicated, creating a public disturbance and therefore required preventive detention under the provisions of the Tripura Police Act and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
However, the High Court found significant inconsistencies between the officer’s version, police records, the general diary entries and the findings of the SIT. The bench observed that the investigation did not support the claim that the youth had been creating a public nuisance or that he had been taken to hospital immediately after his arrest.
The court also questioned the reliability of the medical report relied upon by the officer, noting that while it referred to intoxication, it did not mention any injuries, despite subsequent medical examinations indicating injuries compatible with assault.
Holding that the officer had failed to follow the mandatory arrest procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court in the Arnesh Kumar case, the bench rejected his defence. The court further observed that, as the senior police officer present, he had failed to prevent the alleged assault inside the police station.
Finding the officer guilty of contempt of court, the High Court directed him to deposit a fine of Rs 2,000 within four weeks. It ordered that failure to comply with the direction would result in one month’s simple imprisonment, following which the contempt proceedings were closed.