Joymalya Bagchi, J. - (1.) The petitioner has approached this court, inter alia, alleging that he was illegally arrested in connection Baguihati Police Station Case 668 of 2015 dated July 26, 2015 under Sections 341/323/354/345D/506 of the India Penal Code and under Sections 66A/66E of the Information Technology Act without complying with the directives laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar 3 State of Bihar & anr., 2014 8 SCC 273.
(2.) The learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that his client was arrested in the instant case on September 28, 2015 without resorting to provisions of Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He submits that the aforesaid criminal case had been registered at the behest of his estranged wife, namely, Mousumi Saha, in order to malign and harass him. He further submits that the arrest was unnecessary in the facts of the case and the police officer in an arbitrary and whimsical manner arrested his client and subjected him to unnecessary deprivation of liberty and irreparable loss and injury to his reputation in utter breach of the fundamental rights of life and liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, he relies on Dr. Rini Johar & anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & ors., 2016 11 SCC 703.
(3.) Mr. Subhabrata Dutta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents, submits that the first information report was lodged by the de facto complainant complaining of continual harassment by the petitioner. It has been alleged in the first information report that the petitioner was holding out threats to the de facto complainant and her mother and was regularly subjecting them to verbal abuses including physical assault. Several general diaries being General Diary Entry No.2651 of 2015 dated July 29, 2015 and General Diary Entry No.53 of 2015 dated August 1, 2015 respectively were lodged by the de facto complainant - complaining that after registration of the aforesaid criminal case, the petitioner was threatening the de facto complainant and her mother with dire consequences including death if they did not withdraw the aforesaid criminal case. On the basis of such complaints lodged by the de facto complainant, the investigating officer, being respondent no.4 herein, came to the conclusion that there were prima facie materials that the petitioner was continuously threatening the de facto complainant and there was every chance of tampering of evidence and/or abscondence of the accused person. Hence, he recorded such grounds of arrest at page 23 of the case diary on 16th August, 2015 at 23.59 hours and thereafter proceeded to effect arrest in terms of Section 41(1)(b)(ii)(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such satisfaction was also reflected in forwarding memo dated 29th September, 2015 while producing the petitioner before the learned Magistrate in accordance with law. These facts have also been averred in the affidavit in opposition filed by respondent no.4 in this case.;