Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.04.29 10:43:29 +0530 2025:CGHC:18995-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 243 of 2025 Chandan Mamtani S/o Kanhiya Lal Mamtani Aged About 53 Years R/o House No. 236/07, Atharvved-3, Dikshit Nagar, Nari Road, P.S. Kapil Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra versus ... Petitioner State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station - Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Depenn S. Jagyasi, Advocate (through Video Conferencing) assisted by Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Arvind Kumar Verma Chief Justice , Judge
Decision
Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 28.04 .2025 1. Heard Mr. Depenn S. Jagyasi, learned counsel (through Video Conferencing) assisted by Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned 2 Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 4. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “a) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, and set-aside the order dated 10/04/2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon passed in Crime no. 127/2025 of P.S Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon and further the arrest of the Petitioner followed by the consequential remand order may also be set aside and the petitioner may be released from the custody forthwith. b) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), the Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to grant any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that, on 29.03.2025, an FIR bearing Crime No.127/2025 was registered against Raju Netam at Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 34(2) and 59(a) of the Chhattisgarh Excise (Amendment) Act, 2002 alleging that on 29.03.2025, the Station House Officer, Dongargarh received a reliable tip-off from an informant stating that a large consignment of illegal liquor, sourced from the State of Madhya Pradesh, was 3 being illicitly stored and repackaged at a farmhouse situated on the Kutcha road from village Karwari to Latmara and the said liquor was being filled into smaller bottles and falsely labelled with Chhattisgarh excise seals with an intention to distribute and sell them illegally. It is further alleged that acting upon this information, the Police team, along with village witnesses including the Sarpanch and Panch of Karwari, reached the farmhouse owned by Rohit Netam alias Sonu, located in an isolated agricultural area. Upon arrival, the team conducted a search of the premises, during which a large quantity of liquor was found stored inside locked rooms of the farmhouse. The locks were broken open in the presence of witnesses, and video recording of the operation was conducted. During search of the house, a total of 3888 bulk litres of liquor was recovered and additionally, a concealed basement was discovered beneath a wooden divan, where empty bottles with "CSMCL" markings, fake seals, labels, and equipment used for repackaging (including plastic funnels and iron rods) were also recovered. The total market value of the seized liquor was estimated at Rs.27,32,670/- and the sample boxes were sealed for chemical analysis and the entire operation was recorded on video. Based on the statements of witnesses, physical evidence, and recovery, an FIR was registered against Roheet Netam alias Sonu under relevant provisions for illegal possession, storage, and repackaging of liquor from another State for unlawful distribution within Chhattisgarh. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who 4 was unknown about the above incident and have no connection in the alleged crime was traumatized by seeing the police at the door step of his residence in Nagpur, in the morning 06:00 AM on 09.04.2025 and immediately he was taken in custody. He further submits that without presenting the petitioner before the jurisdictional Magistrate and without seeking transit remand, he was directly taken to Police Station at Dongargarh and was kept in illegal custody till 12:45 PM of 10.04.2025 and subsequently, he was presented before the learned Judicial Magistrate on 10.04.2025 and sought for the judicial remand. It has been contended that the respondent has wrongly mentioned the time of arrest because the petitioner was taken in custody on 09.04.2025 at 06:00 AM, but only to secure the illegal remand, the respondent in its application seeking remand mentioned the time of arrest as 16:45 of 09.04.2025. It has been submitted that while the arrest of the named accused Rohit Netam was made, he has stated that the stickers were made available by one Manoj Jasaram, who in turn named the present petitioner alleging that he used to get the stickers from the present petitioner and on the same day i.e. on the date of remand i.e. 10.04.2025, the petitioner has moved an application seeking to release him from judicial custody. It has been further submitted that the Police authorities of Police station Dongargarh has arrested the petitioner illegally and without obtaining transit remand from the jurisdictional Magistrate at 5 Nagpur and brought the petitioner to Dongargarh as also kept him in custody for more than 24 Hours before producing him in front of Magistrate, as such, the order dated 10.04.2025 be set-aside and the petitioner be released from the judicial custody. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269, to contend that the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality, but a mandatory constitutional requirement. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the order dated 10.04.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dongargarh would show that the learned Magistrate has recorded that the accused person has been made known about the reasons of his arrest and there is sufficient material available against the accused, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that he was not made known about the reasons of arrest is wrong, therefore, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 7. Perusal of the order dated 10.04.2025 would show that the investigation in the present case has been completed, judicial remand of the accused is sought for till 17.04.2025 and the family 6 of the accused has been informed about the arrest. It further goes to show that since the investigation of the case does not seem to be completed within 24 hours and there are strong grounds for accepting the remand application, judicial remand of the accused has been accepted. The accused has also engaged an Advocate and on being asked the accused has been apprised about the reasons of arrest. 8. It has been further reflected from the order dated 10.04.2025 that in compliance with the guidelines and orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the arrest/judicial custody of the accused in the matter of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, the relevant check-list has been attached with the case diary and therefore, in order to comply with the said guidelines, the application seeking judicial custody of the petitioner has been allowed. 9. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case as also from perusal of the order dated 10.04.2025, it is apparent that the accused was informed about the reasons of his arrest. The ratio which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) would not come to the rescue of the petitioner because in the said case the appellant therein was not informed of the grounds for his arrest, whereas in the present case, the person whose name was suggested by the petitioner was informed about the reasons of the 7 arrest of the petitioner, further the petitioner has also engaged an Advocate, therefore, it cannot said that he was unaware with the grounds of his arrest. 10. Considering the matter in its entirety as well as appreciating the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, no interference is called for by this Court in its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for grant of any relief to the petitioner. However, he is at liberty to take recourse to law, if so advised. 11. The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Judge Anu