Chhattisgarh High Court Awards ₹25,000 Compensation For Illegal Detention After Man Kept In Jail Despite Furnishing Court-Ordered Bail Bond
The Chhattisgarh High Court has awarded ₹25,000 as compensation to a man whose right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution was violated after he was kept in judicial custody despite furnishing the bail bond directed by the Executive Magistrate. The Court observed that a person arrested merely on suspicion, against whom no cognizable or non-bailable offence is...
The Chhattisgarh High Court has awarded ₹25,000 as compensation to a man whose right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution was violated after he was kept in judicial custody despite furnishing the bail bond directed by the Executive Magistrate. The Court observed that a person arrested merely on suspicion, against whom no cognizable or non-bailable offence is made out, cannot be remanded to judicial custody and ought to be released on bail in accordance with law.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal was hearing a writ petition filed by a man seeking compensation for his alleged illegal detention. According to the petitioner, he was called to the police station following a complaint, where he was allegedly pressured to compromise with the complainant. Upon his refusal, he was arrested under Sections 170, 126 and 135(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) on the allegation that his conduct was likely to cause a breach of peace. The Executive Magistrate directed his release upon furnishing a bail bond of ₹1 lakh. Although the petitioner furnished the requisite bail bond, the authorities instead sent it for verification, remanded him to jail and released him only four days later. The petitioner contended that his continued incarceration despite compliance with the bail order violated Article 21 and entitled him to compensation. The State argued that the detention was pursuant to a judicial order and therefore could not be treated as illegal.
The Court held that the power of arrest under Section 35 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 41 CrPC) is preventive in nature and cannot be exercised routinely. It observed that the State had failed to produce any material demonstrating that the petitioner had committed a cognizable offence, and therefore there was no justification for insisting upon security for his release.
The Court further held that a Magistrate cannot mechanically remand a person to custody and must satisfy himself that a non-bailable offence appears to have been committed and that custodial detention is genuinely necessary. It emphasised that liberty under Article 21 includes freedom from humiliation, unnecessary arrest and arbitrary detention.
“… life and liberty of a citizen guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes life with dignity and liberty with dignity. Liberty must mean freedom from humiliation and unnecessary/false/mischievous arrest, indignities at the hand of the authority would include police excesses in a given case,” the Court observed.
The Bench noted that the Supreme Court had stressed that arrest should not be made merely because it is lawful to do so, and that police officers must first consider whether arrest is actually necessary. The Court reiterated that constitutional courts are empowered to award compensation where unlawful action by State authorities infringes fundamental rights.
Holding that the petitioner's continued detention despite furnishing the court-directed bail bond amounted to a violation of his fundamental right to life and personal liberty, the High Court awarded compensation of ₹25,000, directing the State Government to pay the amount within thirty days.
Case Title: Ashraf Beg v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [WPCR No. 564 of 2025]