He has been charged u/s 295(a) IPC which is punishable with max 3 yrs imprisonment.
But while arresting him, police did not give him the benefit of Sec 41A CrPC. Why?
Arrest was made in clear violation of Judgment of Arnesh Kumar v/s State Of Bihar & Anthr, (2014) 8 SCC 273 https://twitter.com/TimesNow/status/1253209740227883008

The above judgment clearly says, Arrest must be made after satisfying necessary parameters as mentioned under section 41 of the CrPC & no arrest should be made only because the offense is non-bailable and cognizable and therefore, lawful for the police officers to do so.

A person accused of offence punishable with imprisonment for a term upto 7 yrs cannot be arrested by the police officer only on its satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid.

He has to be given the benefit of Section 41(A).

Police before arrest, in such cases, has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary
1~to prevent such person from committing any further offence
2~for proper investigation of the case
3~to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear

4~tampering with evidence in any manner
5~to prevent accused from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness, to dissuade him from disclosing facts to the Court or the police
6~unless accused is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured

Sec 41A makes it clear that in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required u/s 41(1)Cr.PC, the police is required to issue a notice directing the accused to appear before him at a specified place & time. Law obliges such an accused to appear before the police officer.

Section 41(A) further mandates that if such an accused complies with the terms of notice he shall not be arrested, unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that the arrest is necessary, even then the arrest is to be scrutinized by the Magistrate.

If police officer to arrest an accused without a warrant are scrupulously enforced, the wrong committed by the police officers intentionally or unwittingly would be reversed and the number of cases which come to the Court for grant of anticipatory bail will substantially reduced.

Clearly it is a politically motivated case where the Govt is trying 2 show its Secular Face inorder to please its master @ 10JP

But what abt the freedom of that man where he has his own personal choice? How Sec 295(a) attracted in this case? Media has given it a religious Colour