Chhattisgarh High Court Raps Police For Illegal Arrest, Alleged Custodial Violence; Awards ₹1 Lakh Compensation To Arrestee
The Chhattisgarh High Court has come down heavily on police officials for the illegal arrest, alleged custodial violence, and continuous harassment and humiliation meted out to a hotel owner, holding that the unwarranted incarceration resulted in a “serious infringement” of fundamental rights of personal liberty and dignity.While the petitioner was lawfully running his licensed hotel, it...
The Chhattisgarh High Court has come down heavily on police officials for the illegal arrest, alleged custodial violence, and continuous harassment and humiliation meted out to a hotel owner, holding that the unwarranted incarceration resulted in a “serious infringement” of fundamental rights of personal liberty and dignity.
While the petitioner was lawfully running his licensed hotel, it was alleged that local police repeatedly interfered with the hotel's functioning.
Though the High Court had granted him interim protection back in 2023 by ordering the authorities to not unnecessarily hinder the running of the hotel, it was alleged they nonetheless illegally arrested the petitioner on a false pretext of breach of peace and, without informing the grounds of such arrest, subjected him to extreme custodial violence of such degree that he lost consciousness and regained it only after water was sprinkled upon him.
It was also claimed that no FIR was registered against him, and after being produced before the Magistrate, he was sent to Central Jail despite the absence of a registered offence and without any material demonstrating the necessity of his custodial detention. He was later released on bail after his family furnished the bail bond.
In this premise, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal observed,
“... 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. 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.”
Noting that violation of fundamental rights by the State warrant monetary compensation as public law remedy, the Court awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the petitioner for the humiliation, loss of liberty and social stigma caused due to the unlawful arrest.
Further, the Court lamented that acts such as illegal arrest, custodial violence and wrongful detention, erode public trust in the criminal justice system and shakes the faith of citizens in the constitutional machinery.
“..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…” the Court stated.
The Court examined the Ishtagasha and observed that the petitioner was arrested on mere suspicion of creating disturbance, and even if the version of the State was taken at face-value, allegations against him only demonstrated a situation of momentary altercation, which could have been dealt with by less intrusive measures.
Noting that the drastic step of arrest and judicial remand was disproportionate, the Court held,
“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 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.”
It was further noted that petitioner was kept completely in the dark about the grounds of 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”, the Court stated.
The Court also highlighted the concerning manner in which the Magistrate authorised the remand. Remarking that he was required to act as a “judicial sentinel with duty”, the Court stated,
"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…”
Accordingly, the petition was allowed.
Case Details:
Case Number: WPCR No. 553 of 2025
Case Title: Akash Kumar Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh