Court rejects unconditional apology, says investigating officer should have verified extended interim order before arresting petitioner; one officer sentenced to one month’s imprisonment, case against another dismissed
The Telangana High Court has held a police officer guilty of contempt of court for arresting an accused despite a continuing interim order protecting him from arrest in an anticipatory bail petition.
Justice K. Sujana delivered the order in a contempt case filed by Katta Vamsi Krishna, who alleged that police officers deliberately violated the High Court’s interim directions passed in his anticipatory bail matter. The court found that the investigating officer, respondent No.1, had knowledge of the initial protection order and was therefore bound to verify whether the protection had been extended before proceeding with the arrest.
According to the judgment, the petitioner was named as Accused No.1 in FIR No.413 of 2026 registered at Saroor Nagar Police Station in connection with a dowry death-related case. He had approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail. On 21 April 2026, the court granted interim protection from arrest, which was later extended on 23 April and 27 April 2026. Despite these subsisting orders, the petitioner was arrested on 28 April 2026 and produced before the Magistrate for remand.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the police had been repeatedly informed about the High Court’s orders and were even asked to verify the same from the court’s official website, but they ignored those directions and went ahead with the arrest. It was also alleged that the police pressured the hospital to discharge the petitioner, who had been undergoing treatment, so that he could be taken into custody.
The Public Prosecutor defended the police action by claiming that respondent No.1 was unaware of the extension of the interim protection and had acted due to the seriousness of the offence. An unconditional apology was also tendered on behalf of the officer.
However, the court rejected this explanation. It observed that once the investigating officer was aware of the original order protecting the petitioner from arrest, it was his duty to check whether the protection had been extended, either through the Public Prosecutor or the High Court’s website. The court held that arresting the petitioner without such verification amounted to wilful disobedience of the court’s order.
The court also noted that the Magistrate had rejected the remand after being informed of the subsisting High Court orders, which further supported the petitioner’s case. The apology offered by respondent No.1 was not accepted, as the explanation for ignorance of the order was found unsatisfactory.
At the same time, the court dismissed the contempt case against respondent No.2, holding that he was neither the investigating officer nor the arresting officer, and no order had been passed against him.
Finding respondent No.1 guilty of wilful contempt, the High Court sentenced him to one month’s imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000, payable within four weeks. On the State’s request, the court suspended the operation of the sentence until 19 October 2026 to enable filing of an appeal.
Bottom Line :
Contempt of Court - Arrest of accused despite subsisting interim order in anticipatory bail petition directing police not to arrest him - Investigating Officer, having knowledge of initial protection order, was bound to verify whether protection was extended - Failure to verify from official website or through Public Prosecutor and proceeding with arrest amounts to wilful disobedience - Unconditional apology rejected - Respondent No.1 held guilty of contempt and sentenced; contempt case against respondent No.2 dismissed.
Statutory provision(s): Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Sections 10, 11, 12, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 187, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 80 read with Section 3(5)
Katta Vamsi Krishna v. A. Krishnaiah, (Telangana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2987166
