Chattisgarh High Court
Satish Kumar Chandra vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 August, 2024
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
NAFR
2024:CGHC:30603-DB
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 137 of 2024
1. Satish Kumar Chandra, S/o Late Nankiram Chandra, Aged About 37
Years Resident Of Village - Ghoghri, Up-Tahsil - Chhapora, Tahsil
Malkharoda, Police Station - Dabhra, District Sakti (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster
Management, Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District
Raipur (C.G.)
2- The Collector / District Magistrate Sakti District Sakti (C.G.)
3- The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Malkharoda District Sakti (C.G.)
4- The Tahsildar And Executive Magistrate, Malkharoda District Sakti
(C.G.)
5- The Naib Tahsildar And Incharge Executive Magistrate Up-Tahsil
Chhapora, Tahsil - Malkharoda, District Sakti (C.G.)
6- The Station House Officer Police Station, Dabhra, District Sakti (C.G.)
7- Sanjay Kumar Minj Posted As Tahsildar And Executive Magistrate,
Malkharoda, District Sakti (C.G.)
8- Bisahin Chauhan Posted As Naib Tahsildar And Incharge Executive
Magistrate, Up-Tahsil Chhapora, Tahsil - Malkharoda, District Sakti (C.G.)
9- Shivkumar Rathiya Posted As Revenue Inspector, Chhapora /
Malkharoda, District Sakti (C.G.)
10- Dinesh Kumar Dansena S/o Late Gangaram Dansena Resident Of
Karnaud, Dabhripara, Tahsil -Bamhidih, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), At
Present Resident Of Maharana Pratap, Ward No. 47, 5th B.N.C.F.,
Kangoli, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.)
Wpcr 137 of 2024
2
11- Meghnath Dansena S/o Jeetram Dansena Resident Of Karnaud,
Dabhripara, Tahsil - Bamhidih, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
12- Vivek Panda S/o Safed Panda Posted As Patwari, P.H. No. 17, Basin
Tahsil - Malkharoda, District Sakti (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Shri HS Patel, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri RS Marhas, Additional AG For Respondents- 10 and 11 : Shri Ashok Mishra, Advocate
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13.08.2024 Heard Shri HS Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri RS Marhas, learned Additional AG, appearing for the respondents/State, and Shri Ashok Mishra, learned counsel for respondents- 10 and 11.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:-
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records pertaining to the case from the respondent authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court ;may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate order, whereby responsible authorities/State may kindly be directed to pay sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner as compensation for mental and physical harassment to the petitioner for his illegal detention.
Wpcr 137 of 2024 3 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents no.4 and 5 not to take any coercive step against the petitioner for dispossession from his own land/property. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.1 to take disciplinary action against the respondents no.4 & 5 for their illegal act, in accordance with law. 10.5 To kindly grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case including cost of litigation."
2. Facts of the present case in brief are that on 07.02.2024, the Station House Officer, PS-Dabhra filed Istgasha before respondent-5, mentioning therein that there is land dispute between the petitioner and respondents-10 and 11, and due to the said land dispute, there is chance of breach of peace. On the basis of said Istgasha, respondent-5 has passed preliminary order and directed the petitioner to furnish two solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, and to execute bond of equivalent amount. On account of non-compliance of the order, petitioner was sent to jail. On 09.02.2024, petitioner has submitted Kissan Kitab No.3258599 and guarantor, as well as bond, and on that day, respondent-5 ordered for release of petitioner from jail. Thus respondent-5 has illegally detained the petitioner in jail custody on the instance of respondents-10 and 11, thereby infringed the right to personal liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
3. As the arrest and detention in Police lock-up of a person has caused infinite harm to the reputation and self-esteem of petitioner, he is entitled to get compensation for his wrongful detention, as the Hon'ble Wpcr 137 of 2024 4 Supreme court has awarded appropriate compensation to the persons compelled to face humiliation for wrongful detention. Hence this petition for compensation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order sending the petitioner behind the bar without being fully conversant with the facts and without appreciating the scope of limit of Section 107/116(3) of the CrPC is not justified and in the present case, petitioner has been arrested in connection with Istgasha under Sections 151, 107 and 116 (3) of the CrPC. He further submits that the petitioner has not been arrested in connection with any offence under IPC, as there is no report either to any person or in any Police Station. Thus the Police and respondent-5 erred in sending the petitioner in jail. He also contended that Section 151 of the CrPC only provides for arrest of a person to prevent the commission of a cognizable offence and the person so arrested can be detained in custody only up to 24 hours, and in the absence of anything else, such person should be released by the arresting officer himself on the expiry of the said 24 hours. Thus, the arrest and detention of the petitioner are not only bad and illegal but it is against the law and in violation of Section 21 of the Constitution of India. As such, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the respondent authorities may be directed to pay compensation to the petitioner as prayed, for mental harassment and illegal detention.
Wpcr 137 of 2024 5
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was arrested by the Police on suspicion. Petitioner has not complied the order of respondent-5 by furnishing two solvent sureties, therefore, respondent-5 directed to take custody of petitioner, for maintaining spiritual harmony in the society. The custody of the petitioner cannot be named or termed as illegal detention. He further submits that the said order cannot violate the fundamental right of the petitioner and a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the records of the case.
7. Section 151 of the CrPC reads as under:
"151. Arrest to prevent the commission of cognizable offence.
(1) A police officer, knowing of a design to commit any cognisable offence may arrest, without orders from the Magistrate and without a warrant, the person so designing, if it appears to such officer that the commission of the offence cannot be otherwise prevented.
(2)No person arrested under sub-section (1) shall be detained in custody for a period exceeding twenty-four hours from the time of his arrest unless his further detention is required or authorised under any other provisions of this Code or of any other law for the time being in force."
Wpcr 137 of 2024 6
8. From bare perusal of above referred Section, it is apparent that the Police can exercise power given in the above Section as preventive measure and this Section does not include penal provision.
9. It is well settled principle of law that life and liberty of a citizen guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes life with dignity and liberty with self-esteem. 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.
10. Petitioner herein has sought compensation for his wrongful detention. 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 Wpcr 137 of 2024 7 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, inhuman and degrading treatment."
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while emphasizing on dignity in the same judgment held in para 36 of 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 Wpcr 137 of 2024 8 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 Sathpaty v. P. L. Dani[14]."
12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Nilabati Behera (Smt) Alias Lalita Behera Vs State of Orissa and others, 1993 (2) SCC 746; DK Basu Vs State of West Bengal, 1997(1) SCC 416; Sube Singh Vs State of Haryana and others, 2006 (3) SCC 178; Hardeep Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 2012 (1) SCC 748; and Shreya Singhal Vs Union of India, 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.
13. From the above discussion, and in light of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Nilabati Behera (Smt) Alias Lalita Behera (supra), DK Basu (supra), Sube Singh (supra), Hardeep Singh (Supra), and Shreya Singhal (supra), and the provisions 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/she cannot be remanded to judicial custody and under Wpcr 137 of 2024 9 Section 107 of the CrPC 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, it is submitted that the petitioner was directed to produce two solvent surety bonds for Rs.25,000/- each and personal bond for the same amount. As the petitioner did not execute the bonds as directed, respondent-5 is left with no option except to send the petitioner to jail.
14. Above facts clearly reveal that the right of life and liberty of the petitioner enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated, therefore, petitioner is entitled to get appropriate compensation. We deem it fit to award compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner, and the same shall be payable by the State Government to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from today.
15. With the aforesaid observation, and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
padma