Chhattisgarh High Court Grants ₹1 Lakh Compensation To Law Student Arrested Illegally & 'Mechanically' Remanded To Judicial Custody

The Chhattisgarh High Court on Wednesday (January 21) ordered the State to pay Rs. 1 Lakh compensation to a law student who was illegally arrested by the police without registration of any FIR and mechanically remanded to judicial custody bereft of any cognizable offence.Emphasizing the value of personal liberty and dignity, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal remarked –“…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...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".The petitioner, who is currently pursuing his graduation in law, happens to run a hotel in Bhilai, Durg to earn his livelihood. On 08.09.2025, the police allegedly 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, in connection with alleged theft of gold ornaments of a lady guest who resided in the hotel.He further alleged that the police not only arrested him but also subjected him to severe custodial violence. He also complained that he was never provided with the grounds of arrest, which was illegally effected under Section 170 of the BNSS and preventive proceedings under Sections 126 and 135 thereof were initiated in a mechanical, arbitrary, and mala fide manner.The petitioner was thereafter produced before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Durg, who, according to him, acted solely on the police papers without due application of mind and remanded the petitioner to judicial custody. He was released on bail on the following day after executing the required bail bond. Being humiliated by such action, the petitioner filed this writ petition not only to quash the criminal proceedings but also seeking compensation for illegal detention.The petitioner highlighted several illegalities committed by the law enforcement authorities. The first and foremost contention was that there was no FIR and he was arrested not for commission of any cognizable offence but merely on suspicion of alleged altercation with the police officials. He also argued that the power under Section 35 of the BNSS is purely preventive in nature which cannot be used as penal provision in disguise.He was allegedly not supplied with grounds of arrest nor was he issued a mandatory notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS by the police before arrest. It was also his contention that the Magistrate mechanically remanded him to judicial custody under Section 187 of the BNSS without applying his mind. Upon hearing the contentions of the petitioner as well as the State, the Court was of the view that the petitioner was not arrested for 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,” it held.The Court also found force in the argument of the petitioner that the police is obliged to mandatorily issue notice of appearance under Section 35(3) of the BNSS where arrest is not required. In this case, no such notice was issued and failure in that respect was held to vitiate the arrest itself.For determining whether the petitioner was supplied with the grounds of arrest, the Court perused the arrest memo from which it was palpable that the petitioner was ignorant of the same. The Court, therefore, highlighted the recent ruling of the top Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1066 which 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 court also observed that manner in which the Sub Divisional Magistrate...

Chhattisgarh High Court Grants ₹1 Lakh Compensation To Law Student Arrested Illegally & 'Mechanically' Remanded To Judicial Custody

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags