1 - Sahil Banjare S/o Sanjay Banjare Aged About 19 Years R/o Uslapur Near v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:8623-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 498 of 2024 1 - Sahil Banjare S/o Sanjay Banjare Aged About 19 Years R/o Uslapur Near Aman Hotel, Police Station - Sakri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Inspector General Of Police Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - Station House Officer Police Station - Civil Line, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 6 - Nitesh Verma @ Prince S/o Naresh Kumar Verma Aged About 38 Years R/o Indrasen Nagar, 274 Kholi, Police Station - Civil Line, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s) : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 19 .02.2025 2 1. Heard, Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate, for the Respondent/ State. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the following relief:- “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioners for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.” 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction to respondents authorities to take appropriate legal or disciplinary action against the liable officer of the Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction to respondent State, taking note of suffering and humiliation suffered by the petitioners by granting a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) towards compensation to the petitioner to be paid by the State of Chhattisgarh. 10.4 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 would submit that on 08/10/2024, the petitioner was being taken by the Civil Line police and detained in the Police Station, without giving any information of the offence under which he has been taken into custody and when he was produced before the concerned Executive Magistrate/ City Magistrate, Bilaspur on 09/10/2024, he was directed to be released on his personal bond with two sureties and further in the order-sheet, it has been ordered that since the petitioner could not furnish his bond and sureties, he be sent to jail which is the prepared document and the petitioner was being restrained by the police persons from furnishing his bail bond and sureties and thereby, he was sent to jail. Despite having furnished the bail bond on the same day, the authorities have not permitted him to furnish bail bond and not accepted the same and sent to jail 3 intentionally. His bail bond could only be accepted on 14.10.2024 and till that time he was detained in jail without any reason that too without accepting the bail bond of the petitioner. He would further submit that on 09/10/2024, the Police officers of Civil Line Police Station, Bilaspur being hand in gloves with the private respondent arrested the petitioner from his residence and taken to Civil Line Police Station. However, various assursion have been made regarding illegality of arrest and warrant of arrest and about the offence they were arresting the petitioner, but the Police officers of Civil Line Police Station did not give any heed to any of the queries of the petitioner and arrest him arbitrarily. The petitioner was taken to the Civil Line Police Station and was put under illegal detention without informing the reasons for arrest. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had shown his willingness to furnish bail bond as well if at all required, however, the Police officer of Civil Lines Police Station, Bilaspur deliberately and illegally did not given any heed to same and put him behind bar. It is submitted that the Police Officers not only infringed the personal liberty and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to the petitioner, but subjected him to the police atrocities. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that 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 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.” 4 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 of society, the law violator or the law abider..........” 6. Learned earned counsel for the petitioners submits that 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, 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 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 the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest. 5 (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 examinee 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 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." 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 referred to Section 41 of the Cr.P.C. analyzing the said provision, opined that a person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer only on his satisfaction that such person had committed the offence. It has been further held that: 6 “7.1….. A police officer before arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest, is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or the police officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured. These are the conclusions, which one may reach based on facts. Eventually, the Court was compelled to State (SCC p. 279, para 7.3) 7.3 In pith and core, the police officer before arrest must put a question to himself, why arrest ? Is it really required ? What purpose it will serve ? What object it will achieve ? It is only after these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. In fine, before arrest first the police officers should have reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or the more purposes envisaged by sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section 41 of the Cr.P.C.” 8. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the similar matter of Rini Johar vs. State of M.P., reported in (2016) 11 SCC 703 related to police atrocity and illegal custody in which Hon'ble Apex Court held that the dignity of the petitioners, a doctor and a practicing advocate has been seriously jeopardized, and awarded the compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/ each held as under: “23. In such a situation, we are inclined to think that the dignity of the petitioners, a doctor and a practicing advocate has been seriously jeopardized. Dignity, as has been held in Charu Khurana v. Union of India [Charu Khurana v. Union of India, (2015) 1 SCC 192 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 161], is the quintessential quality of a personality, for it is a highly cherished value. It is also clear that liberty of the petitioner was curtailed in violation of law. The freedom of an individual has its sanctity. When the individual liberty is curtailed in an unlawful manner, the victim is likely to feel more anguished, agonised, shaken, perturbed, disillusioned and emotionally torn. It is an assault on his/her identity. The said identity is 7 sacrosanct under the Constitution. Therefore, for curtailment of liberty, requisite norms are to be followed. Fidelity to statutory safeguards instil faith of the collective in the system. It does not require wisdom of a seer to visualise that for some invisible reason, an attempt has been made to corrode the procedural safeguards which are meant to sustain the sanguinity of liberty. The investigating agency, as it seems, has put its sense of accountability to law on the ventilator. The two ladies have been arrested without following the procedure and put in the compartment of a train without being produced before the local Magistrate from Pune to Bhopal. One need not be Argus-eyed to perceive the same. Its visibility is as clear as the cloudless noon day. It would not be erroneous to say that the enthusiastic investigating agency had totally forgotten the golden words of Benjamin Disraeli: “I repeat ……. that all power is a trust – that we are accountable for its exercise – that, from the people and for the people, all springs and all must exist.” ……………… 27. In the case at hand, there has been violation of Article 21 and the petitioners were compelled to face humiliation. They have been treated with an attitude of insensibility. Not only there are violation of guidelines issued in D.K. Basu [D.K Basu vs. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 92], there are also flagrant violation of mandate of law enshrined under Sections 41 and 41-A of the Cr.P.C. The investigating officers in no circumstances can flout the law with brazen proclivity. In such a situation, the public law remedy which has been postulated in Nilabati Behera [Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa, (1993) 2.SCC 746 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 527], Sube Smgh vs. State of Haryana [Sube Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2006) 3 SCC 178 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 54], Hardeep Singh vs. State of M.P. [Hardeep Singh vs. State of M.P., (2012) 1 SCC 748 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 684], comes into play. The constitutional courts taking note of suffering and humiliation are entitled to grant compensation. That has been regarded as a redeeming feature. In the case at hand, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, we think it appropriate to grant a sum of Rs.5,00,000 (Rupees five lakhs only) towards compensation to each of the petitioners to be paid by the State of M.P. within three months hence. It will be open to the State to procceed against the erring officials, if so advised.” 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case also the petitioner was subjected to police atrocities and abuse of power by the police 8 authorities by illegal detention, which infringed the personal liberty and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The illegal arrest is in violation of the due process of law, which seriously jeopardizes the dignity of the petitioner, the police authorities played with the liberty of the petitioner and caused trauma, pain and humiliation to the petitioner and her family. He also submits that the arresting officer failed to show that the petitioners committed any cognizable at all, but still curtailed the liberty of the petitioner by arresting them on 16.09.2023, which demonstrates abuse of power by the Police. 10.On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 5 opposes the prayer made by the petitioner. Learned State counsel has further submit that as the complaint was received at the concerned Police Station, the Police staff went to the house of the petitioner and taken him into custody. The petitioner was engaged in placing defamatory post with the hindu god/ goddess in social media which affecting the public at large for which the present petitioner was taken into custody and produced before the concerned Magistrate and preventive measures have been taken under Section 170, 126 and 135 of B.N.S.S. 2023 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12.The petitioner has sought compensation for wrongful detention on the ground that on the preventive measure, the petitioner was taken into custody but has sent to jail and when he intended to furnish his bail bond and security, he was deprived by furnishing of the same and kept him in custody till 14.10.2024. From perusal of the document (Annexure-P/4) which is the order-sheet of the City Magistrate, Bilaspur dated 09/10/2024 passed in Case No. 595 of 2024, it appears that the petitioner was directed to be released on bail and it was tik marked on the part of the order-sheet that the petitioner has failed to submit his bail bond and surety and therefore, he be 9 sent to jail. It is the case of the petitioner that he was ready and intended to furnish the bail bond and surety on that very time but due to the pressure of Police and the authorities, his bail bond and sureties was not accepted and he intentionally sent to jail. The petitioner was kept in custody under the preventive measure and when he was ready to furnish the bail bond, the authorities concerned was under obligation to kept his bail bond furnished and released him on bail. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India has awarded appropriate compensation to the persons compelled to face humiliation for wrongful detention. The word ‘harassment’ has been dealt by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mehmood Nayyar Azam vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2012 (8) SCC 1 in para 22 as under : “22. At this juncture, it becomes absolutely necessary to appreciate what is meant by the term “harassment”. In P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Law Lexicon, Second Edition, the term “harass” has been defined, thus: - “Harass. “injure” and “injury” are words having numerous and comprehensive popular meanings, as well as having a legal import. A line may be drawn between these words and the word “harass” excluding the latter from being comprehended within the word “injure” or “injury”. The synonyms of “harass” are: to weary, tire, perplex, distress tease, vex, molest, trouble, disturb. They all have relation to mental annoyance, and a troubling of the spirit.” The term “harassment” in its connotative expanse includes torment and vexation. The term “torture” also engulfs the concept of torment. The word “torture” in its denotative concept includes mental and psychological harassment. The accused in custody can be put under tremendous psychological pressure by cruel, in human and degrading treatment.” 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while emphasizing on dignity in the same judgment held in para 36 as under : “36. From the aforesaid discussion, there is no shadow of doubt that any treatment meted out to an accused while he is in custody which causes humiliation and mental trauma 10 corrodes the concept of human dignity. The majesty of law protects the dignity of a citizen in a society governed by law. It cannot be forgotten that the Welfare State is governed by rule of law which has paramountcy. It has been said by Edward Biggon “the laws of a nation form the most instructive portion of its history.” The Constitution as the organic law of the land has unfolded itself in manifold manner like a living organism in the various decisions of the court about the rights of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. When citizenry rights are sometimes dashed against and pushed back by the members of City Halls, there has to be a rebound and when the rebound takes place, Article 21 of the Constitution springs up to action as a protector. That is why, an investigator to a crime is required to possess the qualities of patience and perseverance as has been stated in Nandini Sathpathy v. P.L. Dani, 1978(2) SCC 424.” 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Nilabati Behera (Smt.) Alias Lalita Behera (supra), D.K. Basu (supra), Sube Singh vs. State of Haryana & Others, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 178, Hardeep Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 748 and Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 1, held that the Investigating Officers in no circumstances can flout the law with brazen proclivity. It is also observed that the constitutional Courts taking note of suffering and humiliation are entitled to grant compensation. 16. From above discussion, in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Nilabati Behera (Smt.) Alias Lalita Behera (supra), D.K. Basu (supra), Sube Singh (supra), Hardeep Singh (supra) and Shreya Singhal (supra) and the provision of law, it is quite vivid that on mere suspicion, a person cannot be arrested against whom the commission of cognizable or non-bailable offence is not made out and he cannot be remanded to judicial custody and under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. of sub- section (1) provides that whenever Executive Magistrate receives information under sub-section (1) such person has to be show-caused why he/she shall not be ordered to execute bond, but in the reply of the State in this regard does not declare any such mandate which has been followed by the 11 respondents/State. The above facts clearly reveal that the right of life and liberty of the petitioners enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get appropriate compensation. We deem it fit to award compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner and same shall be payable by the State Government to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 17.Resultantly, the present writ petition is partly allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawa) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.02.25 18:04:51 +0530