Anwar Dhebar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board

28.07.2025 1 Heard Mr. Arshdeep Singh Khurana, learned counsel (through VC) assisted by Mr. Saurabh Dangi, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Additional Advocate 2 General assisted by Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/Respondent. 2 The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following relief(s):- “1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare the arrest of the Petitioner as illegal and in gross violation of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India in relation to FIR No. 04/2024 dated 17.01.2024 registered by Anti- Corruption Bureau, Raipur, Chhattisgarh and direct that the Petitioner be released from illegal custody of the Respondent police department;

This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside and quash the Order dated

05.04.2024 passed by the Ld. Special Additional Sessions Judge (P.C. Act), Raipur District, Chhattisgarh granting 4 days of police custody remand of the Petitioner from

05.04.2024 till 08.04.2024 in relation to FIR No. 04/2024 dated 17.01.2024 registered by the Respondent;

This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside and quash the Order dated

08.04.2024 passed by the Ld. Special Additional Sessions Judge (P.C. Act), Raipur District, Chhattisgarh granting 4 days of police custody remand of the Petitioner from 3

08.04.2024 till 12.04.2024 in relation to FIR No. 04/2024 dated 17.01.2024 registered by the Respondent;

This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s) which the Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper may kindly be pleased to grant in favour of the Petitioner;” 3 Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a declaration that his arrest on

05.04.2024 is illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of constitutional and statutory safeguards. The Petitioner also seeks quashing of the consequent Remand Orders dated 05.04.2024 and

08.04.2024 passed by the Learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (P.C. Act), Raipur District, Chhattisgarh, in connection with FIR No. 04/2024 dated 17.01.2024 registered by the Respondent for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) read with Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘P.C. Act’). He further submits that the Petitioner was allegedly intercepted without any prior notice on 04.04.2024 while travelling in his vehicle, detained overnight without intimation to his family, and was formally shown to be arrested only at 2:00 PM on

05.04.2024. The Petitioner contends that the arrest is illegal as no written or oral communication of the grounds of arrest was made to him, which is a mandatory constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 4 in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244 and Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement, Criminal Appeal No. 3865 of 2023. It is asserted that neither the arrest panchnama, nor the remand application, nor any intimation to family members reflects that the grounds of arrest were communicated to the Petitioner. The learned Special Judge erred in relying on the case diary for presuming compliance, which is not accessible to the accused and does not satisfy constitutional mandates. The Petitioner further submits that the arrest was carried out to overreach pending proceedings before this Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Notably, the Petitioner had already challenged the FIR by way of a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC’) in CRMP No. 4510/2024, and this Court had granted interim protection from coercive action to similarly placed co-accused persons in CRMP No. 721/2024. The FIR in question was registered despite express judicial directions and is alleged to be in willful contempt of the orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 4 In view of the above facts, the Petitioner contends that his arrest and the subsequent remand orders are illegal, vitiated by non- compliance with constitutional safeguards, and are liable to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC. 5 Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the 5 submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner. He submits that the Petitioner has already approached this Hon’ble Court seeking regular bail by filing MCRC No.

3455/2024, which was dismissed vide order dated 20.12.2024. In the said proceedings, particularly in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the said MCRC, the learned counsel for the Petitioner had raised identical contentions regarding the alleged illegality of arrest, the lack of admissible material, and the grant of protection to other similarly placed co-accused, including the Excise Commissioner, the hologram manufacturer, and others allegedly involved in financial handling. Learned State counsel submits that the said contentions have already been considered and rejected by this Court in the earlier bail proceedings. He further submits that, being aggrieved by the dismissal of his bail plea, the Petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 433/2025, which was also dismissed vide order dated 14.07.2025. Although the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not find any reason to interfere with the High Court’s order, it granted liberty to the Petitioner to renew his bail application in the event no progress is made in the investigation within a period of four months.

It is thus submitted that the present challenge is an indirect attempt to re-agitate the grounds already rejected by both this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It has been contended that insofar as the alleged non-communication of the grounds of arrest is concerned, learned State counsel submits that the legal position in this regard has been duly followed and 6 complied with. The Petitioner’s reliance in the matter of Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244, is misplaced in the facts of the present case. He, however, acknowledges the settled legal principle that the grounds of arrest must be provided in writing to the accused at the time of arrest and that such communication must not be a mere formality. 6 To reinforce this position, the State counsel places reliance on the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prabir Purkayastha v.

State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254, wherein the Apex Court reiterated that the “grounds of arrest” must be clearly distinguished from “reasons for arrest.” While reasons may be formal and procedural, the grounds must contain the substantive material that forms the basis for the decision to arrest. However, he submits that in the present case, the arrest has been carried out in accordance with law and the relevant documents, including the case diary and arrest-related documents, reflect due compliance. Accordingly, it is submitted that the present writ petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 7 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available with the instant petition. 8 Upon careful consideration of the pleadings and rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, as well as the 7 documents placed on record, it reflects that the core contention of the Petitioner pertains to the alleged illegality of his arrest on

05.04.2024 and the consequent remand orders dated 05.04.2024 and 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (P.C. Act), Raipur. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the Petitioner that the arrest is vitiated on account of non-compliance with the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1), inasmuch as the grounds of arrest were neither furnished in writing nor communicated orally at the time of arrest. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal (supra) and Prabir Purkayastha (supra). 9 However, this Court finds substantial force in the objections raised by the learned State counsel, who has rightly pointed out that the Petitioner had earlier filed an application seeking regular bail in MCRC No. 3455/2024, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 20.12.2024. In the said application, the Petitioner had already raised similar contentions regarding the legality of his arrest, the absence of admissible material, and the differential treatment vis-à-vis other co-accused.

These contentions were considered and rejected by this Court after due application of mind. 10 Moreover, the Petitioner also preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 433/2025 challenging the order dated 20.12.2024. The Hon’ble Supreme 8 Court, vide order dated 14.07.2025, declined to interfere with the order of this Court, albeit with liberty to the Petitioner to move a fresh application for bail in the event no progress is made in the investigation within four months. This clearly indicates that the issue regarding the validity of the arrest and the remand was considered and not found to warrant interference by the Apex Court either. 11 It is well-settled that a party cannot be permitted to pursue parallel or successive proceedings raising identical issues which have already been judicially determined. The present petition, though framed as a challenge to the arrest and remand orders, in substance seeks to reopen matters which have been adjudicated in prior bail proceedings.

Such an attempt cannot be countenanced in law. 12 Furthermore, this Court is of the view that while the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest is fundamental and non- negotiable, the question whether such right was complied with or not, and if not, what consequences follow, is a matter that must be adjudicated upon appreciation of evidence during trial or in appropriate statutory proceedings. The case diary entries, arrest- related documents, and the record of proceedings suggest that the procedural requirements were substantially complied with, and any alleged shortcoming does not render the arrest or remand per se illegal at this stage. 9 13 In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the Petitioner from availing any other remedy available to him under law, including the liberty granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to file a fresh bail application in appropriate circumstances. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Anu