Smt. Reeta Choudhari @ Jugbai W/o Shri Chandan Choudhari Aged About 57 Years R/o v. 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Superintendent Of Police, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar
Case Details
1 s JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.07.15 10:10:44 +0530 2025:CGHC:32481-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 396 of 2025 Smt. Reeta Choudhari @ Jugbai W/o Shri Chandan Choudhari Aged About 57 Years R/o Bailabazar, Danteshwari Ward, Police Station Bodhghat, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Superintendent Of Police, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.) 2 Commissioner-Cum-Detaining Authority Bastar Division, Jagdalpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner For Respondents/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Deblina Maity, Advocate Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 14.07.2025 2 1. Heard Ms. Deblina Maity, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 18-06- 2025 (Annexure P-1). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is resident of Bailabazar, Danteshwari Ward, Police Station Bodhghat, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) and is doing the work of Labour and Agriculturist and her whole family is dependent upon her. She further submits that an Istagasa was produced in respect of petitioner by the respondent No. 1 under Section 03 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988 (for short, ‘Act of 1988’) before the respondent No.2, subsequently on the basis of which the proceedings under the Act of 1988 was initiated before the respondent No.2, where the case was registered as Case No.202505950100009/B-121/2024-25. 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner 3 that in the proceedings, the statement of Station House Officer Jagdalpur, was recorded wherein it was submitted that there was frequent information against the petitioner for illicit sale of contraband and also complaints were received and during the record inspection two criminal cases relating to the NDPS has been filed. It was also reported that even after above proceedings there was no correction in the status of the petitioner and complaints are there about her involvement in the illicit Trafficking of Contraband and she is a habitual offender, thus recommendation was made for detention of the petitioner under the Act of 1988. She also contended that in the proceedings, the petitioner was provided with the Istagasa and other documents and the reply was sought and the statement was also recorded, wherein the petitioner denied the allegations and it was submitted that she has been acquitted in the both the charges stated above and she prayed for rejection of the proceeding initiated under the Act of 1988. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit subsequently after considering the documents and the material on record, the respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 18.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) whereby in light of Section 3 read with Section 11 of the Act of 1988, the respondent No.2 came to the finding that the petitioner was involved in two crimes for trafficking of Ganja and there is apprehension that she would continue the same and thus, in the light of Section 10 of the Act of 1988, the petitioner has been directed to be detained for the period of 03 months. She further stated that the Istagasa was filed, the said proceeding was initiated under the Act of 4 1988 against the petitioner with a base that the petitioner was proceeded under the NDPS Act in the year 2020 in Crime No. 263/2022 at Police Station Bodhghat (Jagdalpur) for the offence under Section 21 of the NDPS Act and in the year 2023 in Crime No.317/ 2023 for the offence under Section 21 (B) of NDPS Act and it was stated that the petitioner is habitual criminal and would involve in trafficking of contraband. She submits that such a finding is illegal, because there is no recent offence registered against the petitioner and in the reply the petitioner stated that she has already been convicted in one case and granted bail in another case. 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the circular dated 28.03.2018, the proposal should be sent within period of 15 days of the event for proposal of detention between event of NDPS Act and proposal of detention, but in this case there is long gap between event of NDPS Act and date of proposal of detention, which is more than three years, which is unexplained delay, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. He further contended that the respondent authorities without finding any material against the petitioner, only on the basis of surmises and conjectures presumed that she is a habitual offender, though except one case which is pending except that no other criminal case or any kind of criminal complaint against the petitioner is pending before any Court of law or before any Police Station, thus it is clear that the petitioner is not involved in any kind of offences under the Act of 1988, therefore, the entire proceeding under Case No.202505950100009/B-121/2024-25 is not only bad, 5 illegal, arbitrary, but there is violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that the order impugned is passed only on the basis of Istagasa prepared by Superintendent of Police which is based on false and fabricated statement by her that the petitioner again involved in selling Ganja and report has been lodged by the Station House Officer, but no proceeding or arrest or any kind of seizure was made by the Station House Officer, thus it is clear that only on the basis of earlier offence, the petitioner has been implicated, therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the impugned order. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 9. A worst case of violation of human rights took place during arrest made by the Police, the Hon'ble Apex Court in D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416 observed as under: “20. In Joginder Kamar vs. State of U.P., [(1994) 4 SCC 260: 1994 SCC (Cri) 1172] considered the dynamics of misuse of police power of arrest and opined: "No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another….. No arrest should be made without a reasonable 6 satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person's complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter." 21. ****** A realistic approach should be made in this direction. The law of arrest is one of balancing individual rights, liberties and privileges on the one hand, and individual duties, obligations and responsibilities on the other; of weighing and balancing the rights, liberties and privileges of the single individual and those of individuals collectively; of simply deciding what is wanted and where to put the weight and the emphasis; of deciding which comes first – the criminal or society, the law violator or the law abider………” 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of D.K. Basu (supra), after referring to the authorities in Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P., reported in (1994) 4 SCC 260. Nilabati Behera (Smt.) Alias Lalita Behera Vs. State of Orissa & Others, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 746 and State of M.P. vs. Shyamsunder Trivedi, reported in (1995) 4 SCC 262; the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down certain guidelines to be followed in cases of arrest and detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures. The said guidelines reads as follows: "(1) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations. The particulars of 7 all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register. (2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may either be a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest. (3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the articular place, unless the attesting witness of the meme of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee. (4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town through the Legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station of 8 the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest. (5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained. (6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest and the names and particulars of the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is. (7) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any, present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The “Inspection Memo” must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee. (8) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every 18 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the State or Union Territory 9 concerned. Director, Health Services should prepare such a panel for all tehsils and districts as well. (9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred above, should be sent to the Illaqa Magistrate for his record. (10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation. (11) A police control room should be provided at all district and State headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous noticeboard." 11. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the petitioner is having a girl child of aged about 10 years and as she has been convicted in one case and in another case the bail has been granted to her, as per para 8.7 of the petition, and further, that from 2023 till date, no criminal case has been registered against the petitioner for offences under the NDPS Act, we find it unjustified to detain the petitioner in Police custody for a period of three months as ordered by respondent No. 2 based on the same offences. Thus, in light of these circumstances, we deem it appropriate 10 to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and allow the petition filed by the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.2 is hereby set-aside. The petitioner be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled for any compensation. 13. In the result, the present writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Judge Jyoti/ $ Bhilwar