1

2026:CGHC:3546-DB

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPCR No. 553 of 2025

Akash Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Ramashankar Prasad Aged About 30

Years R/o Avantibai Chowk, Bhilai, District- Durg, (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home,

Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District-

Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Director General Of Police Chhattisgarh, Police, Headquarters

Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

3 - Inspector General Of Police Durg Range, Durg, Office Of The

Inspector General Of Police, District- Durg (C.G.)

4 - Superintendent Of Police Durg, District- Durg (C.G.)

5 - Collector Division- Durg, District- Durg (C.G.)

6 - Shri Hitesh Pisda Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhilai, District- Durg

(C.G.)

7 - Station House Officer Police Station- Supela, District- Durg (C.G.)

8 - Sub Police Station Through Officer In-Charge Smriti Nagar, District-

Durg (C.G.)

9 - Shri Gurvindra Singh Singhu Thana In-Charge, Smriti Nagar, Police

Station, Smriti Nagar, District- Durg (C.G.)

10 - Smt. Promod Singh Assistant Sub-Inspector, Smriti Nagar Police

Station, Smriti Nagar, District- Durg (C.G.)

2

11 - Shri Ashish Rajput Constable, Smriti Nagar Police Station, Smriti

Nagar, District- Durg (C.G.)

12 - Shri Harshit Shukla Constable, Smriti Nagar Police Station, Smriti

Nagar, District- Durg (C.G.)

13 - Shri Vivek Singh Constable, Smriti Nagar Police Station, Smriti

Nagar, District- Durg (C.G.)

14 - Shri Ajit Singh Constable Smriti Nagar Police Station, Smriti Nagar,

District- Durg (C.G.)

15 - Omkareshwar Vaishnav Driver, Smriti Nagar Police Station, Smriti

Nagar, District- Durg (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Vivek Sharma, A.G. and Mr. Praveen Das,

Add. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

21.01.2026

1.Heard Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel for the

petitioner. Also heard Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Advocate

General along with Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate

General appearing for the respondents/State.

2.By way of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for following

reliefs:-

“10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

directed the respondents to call relevant records,

pertaining to the instant matter.

3

10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

quash the order dated- 08.09.2025 as well as all the

proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1379/2025, pending

before respondent No. 6

10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

quash the Istagasha dated – 08.09.2025, prepared by

the Police Chowki, Smriti Nagar against the petitioner.

10.4 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

issue an appropriate writ or direction to take

disciplinary action against the private respondent no. 9

to 15.

10.5 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

direct the respondent No. 1/State, taking note of

suffering and humiliation caused to the petitioner by

granting a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs)

towards compensation to petitioner to be paid by the

'State of Chhattisgarh'.

10.6 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems,

fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted

in favor of the petitioner.”

3.The grievance of the petitioner, in detail, is that the petitioner is a

permanent resident of Bhilai, District Durg, and is presently

pursuing graduation in law. In order to support his family and to

earn his livelihood, the petitioner is managing and running a hotel

situated at Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg, which is a duly registered

and licensed establishment. The hotel has been established and

operated strictly in accordance with law after obtaining all

necessary statutory permissions, licenses, and renewals from the

4

competent authorities under the Chhattisgarh Shops and

Establishment Act, 1958, the Trade and Factory Bye-Laws, 1992,

and other applicable municipal laws. The petitioner asserts that the

hotel is his sole source of income and forms part of his

fundamental right to livelihood.

The grievance of the petitioner further is that despite the

hotel being lawfully operated, local police officials have been

repeatedly interfering with the functioning of the hotel without any

lawful authority. Such interference earlier compelled the petitioner

to approach this Court by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 5208 of 2023.

This Court, vide order dated 21.12.2023, granted interim protection

in favour of the petitioner and categorically directed the

respondents not to cause any hindrance in running the petitioner’s

hotel. The petitioner submits that the said order continues to

remain in force and is binding upon the respondent authorities.

It is the specific grievance of the petitioner that in

complete disregard of the aforesaid order of this Court, on

08.09.2025, respondent police officials arrived at the petitioner’s

hotel under the pretext of conducting an inquiry regarding certain

guests. It is alleged that the police officials checked the hotel

register and identity documents and thereafter entered a room

occupied by a male and a female guest without associating any

lady police constable and without adhering to the procedure

prescribed under law. The guests were thereafter brought out of

5

the room and the hotel manager was allegedly abused and

intimidated without any lawful justification.

The grievance of the petitioner further is that after

some time, the respondent police officials returned to the hotel and

falsely alleged theft of gold ornaments by the hotel staff. Despite

the hotel staff informing the police officials about the presence of

CCTV cameras in the hotel premises, the police officials allegedly

refused to verify the footage and instead conducted an arbitrary

search of the room. Thereafter, the police officials allegedly

assaulted the hotel manager, forcibly detained him, and

threatened the petitioner to appear at the hotel.

It is further alleged that when the petitioner reached

the hotel and attempted to explain the factual position as the

owner of the establishment, the respondent police officials

subjected him to severe verbal abuse, humiliation, and

intimidation, including the use of derogatory and caste-based

remarks directed not only at the petitioner but also at his family

members. The petitioner submits that the police officials continued

such conduct in public view, despite repeated requests to desist,

thereby causing grave mental agony, humiliation, and damage to

reputation.

The grievance of the petitioner further is that he

was forcibly taken to Smriti Nagar Police Station, where he was

again subjected to physical assault and custodial violence by the

6

respondent police officials, including the Station House Officer.

The petitioner submits that he was beaten mercilessly in a closed

room to such an extent that he lost consciousness and regained it

only after water was sprinkled upon him. The petitioner asserts

that at no point was he informed of the grounds of his arrest or the

nature of the alleged offence, in gross violation of the safeguards

guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

It is further the grievance of the petitioner that on

the same date, i.e., 08.09.2025, the respondent police officials

illegally arrested him under Section 170 of the BNSS, 2023, and

initiated preventive proceedings under Sections 126 and 135

thereof in a mechanical, arbitrary, and mala fide manner. The

petitioner was thereafter produced before the learned Sub-

Divisional Magistrate, Durg, who, according to the petitioner, acted

solely on the police papers without due application of mind and

remanded the petitioner to judicial custody, thereby perpetuating

the illegality committed by the police authorities.

The petitioner submits that he was detained in

Central Jail, Durg, and was subjected to medical examination

thereafter. He was released on bail on 09.09.2025 only after his

family furnished the requisite bail bond. The petitioner asserts that

his arrest, detention, and remand were wholly unjustified,

disproportionate, and motivated, resulting in illegal deprivation of

his personal liberty, loss of dignity, mental trauma, and damage to

7

reputation.

It is also the grievance of the petitioner that the

incident dated 08.09.2025 is not an isolated one but part of a

continuing pattern of harassment by the respondent police

officials, who have been frequently visiting the petitioner’s hotel

and demanding illegal gratification for permitting the hotel to

operate smoothly. The petitioner submits that despite multiple

representations made to the Collector, Inspector General of Police,

and Senior Superintendent of Police, Durg, seeking action against

the erring officials and protection from further harassment, no

effective action has been taken, and the threats and intimidation

have continued.

The petitioner, therefore, contends that the actions

of the respondent police officials and the consequential

proceedings initiated against him are arbitrary, illegal, without

authority of law, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the

Constitution of India. The petitioner submits that he has been

subjected to illegal arrest, custodial violence, and wrongful

detention, and that the continued inaction of the authorities has

compelled him to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court

for redressal of his grievances

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the

owner of a duly licensed hotel situated at Kohka, Bhilai, District

Durg, and is a law-abiding and respectable citizen of the society. It

8

is contended that even if the entire prosecution story as reflected in

the Istgasha dated 08.09.2025 is taken at its face value and

accepted in its entirety, no offence whatsoever is made out against

the petitioner. There is neither any FIR registered at Police Station

Smriti Nagar alleging theft of gold ornaments of one Srishti Silhare

nor any complaint or report suggesting that the petitioner was

running the hotel illegally or without valid licences. It is further

submitted that the petitioner has been arrested merely on

suspicion under Section 170 of the BNSS, 2023, without there

being any substantive offence disclosed against him. The arrest of

the petitioner was not in connection with commission of any

cognizable offence but was allegedly on account of an altercation

with police officials, and therefore the petitioner could not have

been detained beyond 24 hours nor could he have been remanded

to judicial custody by invoking Section 187(2) of BNSS. It is argued

that in absence of any offence, there could not have been any

investigation, and consequently, the learned Magistrate lacked

jurisdiction to exercise powers under Section 187(2) of BNSS to

remand the petitioner to judicial custody.

5.Learned counsel further submits that Section 35 of BNSS, 2023

(corresponding to Section 41 of the CrPC) is purely preventive in

nature and does not contain any penal consequences, and

therefore its misuse results in gross violation of the fundamental

right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India, which includes the right to live with dignity

9

and freedom from unnecessary, humiliating, and illegal arrest.

Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 173, wherein

strict compliance of Section 41 CrPC (now Section 35 BNSS) has

been mandated and mechanical arrests have been deprecated. It

is further contended that Section 187 of BNSS (earlier Section 167

CrPC) does not empower a Magistrate to remand an arrested

person to custody as a matter of routine, particularly when the

arrest is based merely on suspicion. The Magistrate is required to

independently apply his mind and satisfy himself regarding the

existence of an offence and the necessity of custody, which has

not been done in the present case. Learned counsel also places

reliance on Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260,

and Kasireddy Upender Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh,

SLP (Crl.) No. 5691/2025, to submit that informing the grounds of

arrest is a mandatory constitutional requirement under Articles 21

and 22(1), which was admittedly not complied with in the present

case. Lastly, it is argued that the mandatory proviso under Section

35(3) of BNSS, requiring issuance of a notice of appearance prior

to arrest, was completely ignored, thereby rendering the arrest of

the petitioner illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law.

6.Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance upon the

recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh

Shah vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, reported in 2025

SCC OnLine SC 2356 , to contend that compliance with the

10

constitutional and statutory mandate of informing the grounds of

arrest is mandatory and not a mere formality. Relevant paras of

which are quoted herein below:

“54. In view of the above, we hold with regard to the

second issue that non supply of grounds of arrest in

writing to the arrestee prior to or immediately after

arrest would not vitiate such arrest on the grounds of

non-compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the

CrPC 1973 (now Section 47 of BNSS 2023) provided

the said grounds are supplied in writing within a

reasonable time and in any case two hours prior to the

production of the arrestee before the magistrate for

remand proceedings.

55. It goes without saying that if the abovesaid schedule

for supplying the grounds of arrest in writing is not

adhered to, the arrest will be rendered illegal entitling

the release of the arrestee. On such release, an

application for remand or custody, if required, will be

moved along with the reasons and necessity for the

same, after the supply of the grounds of arrest in writing

setting forth the explanation for non- supply thereof

within the above stipulated schedule. On receipt of such

an application, the magistrate shall decide the same

expeditiously and preferably within a week of

submission thereof by adhering to the principles of

natural justice.

56. In conclusion, it is held that:

i) The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee

the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences

under all statutes including offences under Penal

Code, 1860 (now BNS 2023);

11

ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in

writing to the arrestee in the language he/she

understands;

iii) In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is

unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in

writing on or soon after arrest, it be so done orally.

The said grounds be communicated in writing

within a reasonable time and in any case at least

two hours prior to production of the arrestee for

remand proceedings before the magistrate.

iv) In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest

and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal

and the person will be at liberty to be set free.”

7.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has conclusively reiterated that the constitutional

mandate of informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest is

mandatory in respect of all offences and under all statutes,

including offences under the BNS, 2023. The grounds of arrest are

required to be communicated in writing and in a language

understood by the arrestee, and even in cases where immediate

written communication is not possible, the same must be supplied

within the stipulated timeframe before remand. Learned counsel

submits that in the present case, the petitioner was arrested

without warrant, the grounds of arrest were neither communicated

in writing nor supplied within the mandatory timeframe prescribed

by law, and yet the petitioner was mechanically remanded to

judicial custody. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the

12

Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is contended that the arrest of the

petitioner and the subsequent remand order are rendered illegal,

arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law.

8.On the other hand, learned Advocate General submits that in

compliance with the order dated 17.10.2025 passed by this Court,

the Senior Superintendent of Police, Durg, District- Durg has filed

his personal affidavit. It is stated therein that the petitioner is the

owner of Hotel Evening Star, situated at Avanti Bai Chowk, Bhilai.

On receipt of information regarding Missing Person No. 128/2025

registered at Police Station Supela, Police Outpost Smriti Nagar,

Bhilai, in respect of one Srishti Silhare, a police team comprising

the In-charge of Police Outpost Smriti Nagar along with other

police personnel proceeded to the said hotel to inquire about the

missing girl. During inquiry, the missing person was found in the

hotel room along with one Praveen Sahu, and while the police

team was bringing them to the police station, the missing person

disclosed that her bag containing jewellery and cash had been left

inside the hotel room.

It is further submitted that when the police personnel

requested the petitioner to open the locked room, the petitioner

allegedly started arguing with the police team and the driver of the

requisitioned vehicle, snatched the vehicle keys, and assaulted the

driver. It is stated that despite counselling, the petitioner allegedly

continued to behave aggressively, creating a situation where there

13

was likelihood of breach of peace and occurrence of an unpleasant

incident. In view thereof, it is contended that the police had no

option but to take preventive action and, accordingly, the petitioner

was arrested under Section 170 of the BNSS, 2023. Preventive

proceedings under Sections 126 and 135 of BNSS were initiated,

and an Istgasha was presented before the learned Sub-Divisional

Magistrate, Chhawani, Bhilai, District Durg.

9.Learned Advocate General further submits that after arrest, the

petitioner’s father was duly informed of the arrest through his

mobile number. It is also stated that since the petitioner was

unable to furnish a bail bond with competent surety on the date of

arrest, he was sent to Central Jail pursuant to a jail warrant. On the

following day, i.e., 09.09.2025, the petitioner’s mother produced

documents of immovable property before the learned Sub-

Divisional Magistrate, on the basis of which bail was granted and

the petitioner was released from jail, as reflected from Annexure

P/6 of the petition.

10.To which, learned counsel for the petitioner, in rejoinder, submits

that by way of the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking

quashment of the criminal proceedings initiated pursuant to the

impugned order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the learned Sub-

Divisional Magistrate, whereby a case under Sections 170, 136

and 135(3) of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 151,

136 and 135 of the CrPC) has been registered against the

14

petitioner. The petitioner has also challenged the manner in which

the respondent police officials initiated the proceedings by

preparing a false and fabricated Istgasha, on the basis of which the

petitioner was sent to judicial custody. The petitioner further assails

the conduct of the private respondents/police officers in

humiliating, abusing, torturing, and physically assaulting the

petitioner, which action, according to him, is wholly illegal, arbitrary,

and violative of his fundamental rights.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ

petition has been filed, inter alia, on the following grounds: firstly,

that there is no FIR registered at Police Station Smriti Nagar

against the petitioner for any cognizable offence; secondly, that the

petitioner was not arrested for commission of any offence but

merely on suspicion of alleged altercation with police personnel;

thirdly, that the power under Section 35 of BNSS is purely

preventive in nature and cannot be converted into a punitive or

penal action; fourthly, that the learned Magistrate failed to

discharge his statutory duty under Section 187 of BNSS (earlier

Section 167 CrPC) by mechanically remanding the petitioner to

judicial custody without verifying the legality of the arrest and the

existence of any offence; fifthly, that the petitioner was arrested

without warrant and without being informed of the grounds of arrest

either at the time of arrest or soon thereafter, in clear violation of

Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India; and sixthly, that

the mandatory requirement of issuance of notice under Section

15

35(3) of BNSS prior to arrest was completely ignored.

It is further submitted that the reply filed by respondent

Nos. 1 to 5, 7 and 8/State and the Senior Superintendent of Police,

Durg, is vague, formal, and evasive in nature. The said reply does

not specifically rebut the material averments raised by the

petitioner and merely contains bald and baseless allegations

without any supporting material. In particular, the allegations made

in paragraph 3 of the reply to the effect that the petitioner locked

the hotel, snatched the keys of the police vehicle, and assaulted

the driver are categorically denied. The petitioner asserts that he

was not present at the hotel during the first visit of the police team

for enquiry regarding the missing girl and had arrived only later,

during the second visit, when allegations of theft of gold ornaments

were raised against the hotel staff. The allegations made in the

reply are stated to be an afterthought, concocted only to justify the

illegal arrest of the petitioner.

Learned counsel further submits that although the

respondents have stated that the petitioner’s father was informed

about the arrest, such intimation does not satisfy the mandatory

constitutional requirement of informing the arrestee himself of the

grounds of arrest. It is reiterated that the petitioner was arrested

without warrant and was never informed of the grounds of his

arrest, either orally or in writing, despite repeated requests, thereby

violating Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution. With regard to

16

the allegation that the petitioner was unable to furnish bail bond

with competent surety, it is submitted that no document has been

placed on record by the respondents to substantiate such claim.

On the contrary, the petitioner asserts that he was ready and

willing to furnish bail bond with his parents as sureties, but was not

permitted to do so for reasons best known to the authorities,

resulting in his illegal detention in Central Jail, Durg.

It is lastly submitted that the petitioner was neither

supplied with the written grounds of arrest nor informed thereof

within the mandatory timeframe, in clear violation of the law laid

down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is pointed out that in the

arrest memo (Annexure P/5 colly), the petitioner has specifically

recorded in his own handwriting the endorsement “I don’t know the

matter?”, which clearly demonstrates that he was kept completely

uninformed about the grounds of his arrest. This, according to

learned counsel, reflects the arbitrariness and apathy on the part of

the respondent police officials. It is submitted that informing the

grounds of arrest is not a mere procedural formality but a

mandatory constitutional safeguard, the non-compliance of which

renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal.

11.To which, learned Advocate General lastly submits that the action

taken by the police authorities was strictly in accordance with law

and within the four corners of the BNSS, 2023. It is contended that

the petitioner was not arrested arbitrarily but was taken into

17

custody only after his conduct created a situation likely to cause

breach of peace and public order, leaving the police with no option

but to invoke preventive provisions. Learned Advocate General

submits that due procedure was followed, the petitioner’s family

was duly informed about the arrest, and the petitioner was

produced before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate within the

stipulated time, who, after due consideration, passed the remand

order. It is further submitted that no mala fide intention can be

attributed to the police officials and that the allegations of custodial

violence and illegal detention are exaggerated and denied.

Learned Advocate General, therefore, prays that the writ petition

being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed.

12.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents appended with writ petition.

13.After considering the pleadings, the material available on record,

the affidavits filed by the respondent-State, and the rival

submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this

Court finds that certain foundational facts are not in dispute. It is

undisputed that no FIR has been registered against the petitioner

in respect of any cognizable offence. It is also undisputed that the

petitioner was taken into custody on 08.09.2025 by the police

officials of Police Outpost Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, purportedly by

invoking the provisions of Section 170 of the BNSS, 2023, and that

on the basis of an Ishtagasha prepared by the police, the petitioner

18

was produced before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate and

was remanded to judicial custody. The record further reveals that

the petitioner was sent to Central Jail despite the absence of any

registered offence and without any material demonstrating the

necessity of his custodial detention.

14.From a careful scrutiny of the Ishtagasha dated 08.09.2025 and

the affidavit of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Durg, it is

evident that the petitioner was not arrested for the commission of

any substantive offence, but merely on an alleged suspicion of

creating disturbance and engaging in altercation with police

personnel. Even if the version of the respondent-State is taken at

its face value, the allegations against the petitioner, at the highest,

disclose a situation of momentary altercation, which could have

been dealt with by less intrusive measures available under law.

The drastic step of arrest and subsequent judicial remand, in the

absence of any registered offence, is wholly disproportionate and

cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

15.Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 41 of the

CrPC) confers power of arrest as a preventive measure and not as

a punitive one. The provision is circumscribed by strict safeguards

and is not intended to authorize routine or mechanical arrests.

Further, Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 mandatorily requires the

police officer to issue a notice of appearance in cases where arrest

is not necessary. In the present case, there is no material on

19

record to demonstrate that the mandatory requirement of issuance

of notice under Section 35(3) was complied with. The failure to

follow this statutory mandate vitiates the arrest itself and renders

the entire action of the police illegal.

16.This Court also finds substance in the grievance of the petitioner

that he was arrested without warrant and that the grounds of arrest

were not informed to him either at the time of arrest or immediately

thereafter. The arrest memo placed on record, wherein the

petitioner has specifically written “I don’t know the matter”, lends

credence to the petitioner’s contention that he was kept completely

in the dark about the grounds of his arrest. Merely informing a

family member about the arrest does not amount to compliance

with the constitutional and statutory requirement of informing the

arrestee himself of the grounds of arrest, as mandated under

Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of

the BNSS, 2023.

17.The recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mihir

Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another (2025 SCC

OnLine SC 2356) has categorically held that while the grounds of

arrest may initially be communicated orally, they must necessarily

be supplied in writing within a reasonable time and, in any case, at

least two hours prior to the production of the arrestee before the

Magistrate. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that non-

compliance with this requirement would render the arrest and

20

subsequent remand illegal, entitling the arrestee to be set at liberty.

In the present case, there is not even a whisper in the State’s

affidavit to show that the grounds of arrest were ever supplied to

the petitioner in writing, either before or after his production before

the learned Magistrate.

18.Equally concerning is the manner in which the learned Sub

Divisional Magistrate exercised jurisdiction under Section 187(2) of

the BNSS, 2023. The power of remand is not to be exercised as a

matter of routine. The Magistrate is duty bound to satisfy himself

that an offence appears to have been committed, that investigation

has commenced, and that custodial detention is necessary. In the

present case, where no FIR was registered and no offence was

disclosed, the remand of the petitioner to judicial custody reflects a

mechanical exercise of power, in complete disregard of the

constitutional mandate and the law laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, reported in

(2014) 8 SCC 273 and Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P.,

reported in (1994) 4 SCC 262. The Magistrate was required to act

as a judicial sentinel, which duty, unfortunately, was not

discharged.

19.In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal reported in 1997 (1) SCC

416 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has exhaustively considered this

question and held that monetary compensation should be

awarded for established infringement of fundamental rights under

21

Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. right to life and held

thus;-

"Custodial violence, including torture and death in the

lock ups strikes a blow at the Rule of Law, which

demands that the powers of the executive should not

only be derived from law but also that the same

should be limited by law. Custodial violence is a

matter of concern. It is aggravated by the fact that it is

committed by persons who are supposed to be the

protectors of the citizens. It is committed under the

shield of uniform and authority in the four walls of a

police station or lock-up, the victim being totally

helpless. The protection of an individual from torture

and abuse by the police and other law enforcing

officers is a matter of deep concern in a free society."

20.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

case 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

22

"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, inhuman and degrading

treatment."

21.The Hon'ble Supreme Court while emphasizing on dignity in the

same judgment held in para 36 of above mentioned judgment, 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 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

23

required to possess the qualities of patience and

perseverance as has been stated in Nandini Sathpaty v.

P. L. Dani[14]."

22.The above quoted judgements make it clear that for the violation of

fundamental rights of a citizen by the State or its servants, in the

purported exercise of their powers, the affected citizen can resort

to the remedy in public law by taking recourse to Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. It further makes it clear that the compensation

is in the nature of "exemplary damages" awarded against the

wrongdoer for the breach of its public law duty and is independent

of the rights available to the aggrieved party to claim compensation

under the private law in an action based on tort, through a suit

instituted in a Court of competent jurisdiction or/and prosecute the

offender under the penal law. Thus, it is settled law that

compensation can be awarded for violation of fundamental rights in

public law domain.

23.Above being the position of fact and law, we have no hesitation in

holding that the petitioner, along with his parents has suffered

severe mental, emotional, and financial hardship due to illegal

detention. The humiliation and harassment occurring in custody,

irrespective of its precise medical cause, is sufficient to engage

the State’s constitutional obligation under Article 21 to

compensate the victim and for the violation of their right to a

dignified life.

24

24.The cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts unmistakably

establishes that the petitioner was subjected to an illegal arrest,

unlawful detention and unwarranted incarceration, resulting in

serious infringement of his fundamental right to life and personal

liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Liberty with dignity is the essence of Article 21, and any arrest or

detention in violation of statutory safeguards amounts to

constitutional wrongdoing by the State.

25.It is now well settled that for violation of fundamental rights by the

State or its instrumentalities, this Court, in exercise of its

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can grant

monetary compensation as a public law remedy. Such

compensation is not in the nature of damages under private law

but is intended to provide redress for the breach of public duty and

to act as a deterrent against arbitrary and illegal exercise of power

by State authorities.

26.Now the question that arises for consideration is with regard to the

quantum of compensation to be awarded. The Courts have, time

and again, deprecated such conduct on the part of police as

noticed hereinabove, and it has been consistently held that where

the State, through its officers, is found responsible for violation of

the fundamental right of a person in its custody, the award of

compensation must serve not only as restitution but also as a

deterrent against recurrence of such inhuman acts. The object of

awarding compensation in such cases is twofold i.e. first, to

25

provide some solace to the victim for the humility suffered, and

second, to remind the State that it bears a constitutional and

moral responsibility to ensure that no individual in its custody is

subjected to torture, cruelty, or indignity.

27.In the present case, the petitioner, a law-abiding citizen and hotel

owner, has been subjected to humiliation, loss of liberty and social

stigma on account of the illegal acts of the police officials and the

consequential unlawful remand. Having regard to the totality of the

facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion

that the petitioner deserves to be compensated for the violation of

his fundamental rights.

28.Accordingly, this Court directs the respondent-State to pay a

compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the

petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of this order,

failing which the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9%

per annum from the date of this judgment till its realization. The

Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Chhattisgarh

(respondent No.1) shall ensure strict compliance of this direction

and effect payment within the time stipulated so that some

measure of justice is extended to the victim and an institutional

message is sent that such police atrocities shall not go

unaccounted for. The amount shall be paid by the State in the first

instance, without prejudice to its right to recover the same from

the erring officials, in accordance with law, after due inquiry.

26

29.In view of the above discussion, the order dated 08.09.2025 along

with the impugned proceedings of criminal case No. 1379/2025

and the istagasha dated 08.09.2025, are hereby quashed.

30.The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

31.The Registry as well as the learned State counsel are directed to

send a copy of this order to all the respondents, forthwith for

information and necessary compliance.

32.Before parting, this Court deems it appropriate to reiterate that

illegal acts of the police officials, the consequential unlawful

remand and police atrocities erode the very foundation of public

trust in the criminal justice system. Every such incident diminishes

the credibility of the law-enforcement machinery and shakes the

faith of citizens in constitutional governance. The State must,

therefore, take earnest steps to sensitize police personnel

regarding human rights, ensure strict adherence to the Mihir

Rajesh Shash (supra) and D.K. Basu (supra) guidelines, and

enforce accountability measures to prevent recurrence of such

barbaric practices within the police force.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)

Judge Chief Justice

Manpreet

27

Headnote

“Preventive arrest under the BNSS must conform to statutory

safeguards and constitutional requirements. Arrest without

registration of a cognizable offence, without informing the arrestee

of the grounds of arrest, and mechanical remand without

application of mind violate Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution

of India. Such illegal detention justifies quashment of proceedings

and award of compensation as a public law remedy.”