Telangana High Court Sentences Cop To 1-Month Jail For Arresting Accused In Contravention Of Protection Order
Court suspended the sentence till October 19, to enable State to prefer an appeal.
The Telangana High Court has sentenced a police officer to one month imprisonment for willfull disobedience of its order after he arrested an accused despite being informed about the Court's order granting the accused interim protection from arrest.The Court held that once the Investigating Officer was made aware of the interim protection order, it was his duty to verify whether the...
The Telangana High Court has sentenced a police officer to one month imprisonment for willfull disobedience of its order after he arrested an accused despite being informed about the Court's order granting the accused interim protection from arrest.
The Court held that once the Investigating Officer was made aware of the interim protection order, it was his duty to verify whether the protection had been extended before proceeding with the arrest.
Justice K. Sujana observed:
“When the learned counsel for the petitioner informed respondent No.1 about the order passed by this Court, it was incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to verify the said order either from the learned Public Prosecutor or from the official website of this Court. Without undertaking such verification, respondent No.1 proceeded to arrest the petitioner and produce him before the trial Court, which amounts to disobedience of the order passed by this Court.”
The contempt petition was filed by Katta Vamsi Krishna against the police officer alleging violation of interim orders passed by the High Court granting him protection from arrest in a criminal case.
The petitioner was Accused No.1 in FIR No.413 of 2026 registered at Saroornagar Police Station under Section 80 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. During the pendency of his anticipatory bail petition, the High Court granted interim protection from arrest on April 21, 2026, which was subsequently extended on April 23 and April 27.
Despite the extension of protection, the petitioner was arrested on April 28 and produced before the Magistrate. The Magistrate rejected the remand after being informed about the High Court's order.
Appearing for the petitioner, Y. Soma Srinath Reddy submitted that the Investigating Officer was aware of the High Court's order but deliberately proceeded with the arrest.
Public Prosecutor Palle Nageshwar Rao submitted that the officer was unaware of the extension of interim protection and that there was no deliberate intention to violate the Court's order.
The issue before the Court was whether the arrest of the petitioner, despite the subsisting protection order, amounted to wilful disobedience of the High Court's directions.
The Court noted that the Investigating Officer was already aware of the initial order granting protection from arrest. Therefore, before taking any coercive action, he was required to verify the status of the proceedings.
The Bench rejected the officer's explanation that he was unaware of the extension order. It held that such a plea could not absolve him when he had knowledge of the earlier protection granted by the Court.
“The respondent No.1 ought to have verified whether the said order was extended or not before proceeding with the arrest of the petitioner,” the Court held.
The Court further observed that the arrest resulted in the petitioner being produced before the Magistrate despite the subsisting order of protection, requiring judicial intervention to prevent the remand.
Although the officer tendered an unconditional apology, the Court found that his explanation was not satisfactory and that the conduct amounted to wilful disobedience of the Court's order.
The contempt petition was partly allowed. The Court held Respondent No.1 guilty of contempt and sentenced him to imprisonment for one month along with a fine of ₹2,000. The operation of the sentence was suspended until October 19, 2026, to enable the officer to avail appropriate legal remedies.
The contempt petition against Respondent No.2 was dismissed as he had no role in the arrest or investigation.
Case Title: Katta Vamsi Krishna v. A. Krishnaiah & Anr.
Case No.: Contempt Case No. 2485 of 2026
Appearance: Y. Soma Srinath Reddy for the petitioner; Palle Nageshwar Rao, Public Prosecutor, for the respondents.