IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the importance of upholding the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the need for a reasonable basis for arrest under the Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

Ramesh Sinha, C.J.

Heard Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 5/State and Mr. Krishna Tandon, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 6.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:

“i. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction to respondents No. 1 to 4 to take appropriate legal or disciplinary action against the liable officer of the Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur and appropriate legal action against the private respondent No. 6;

ii. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction to the respondent State, taking note of suffering and humiliation suffered by the petitioners by granting a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) towards compensation to each of the petitioners to be paid by the State of Chhattisgarh.

iii. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 is a retired school teacher having qualifications of M.A. (English), M.A. (Sociology) and MSW. The petitioner No. 2, is a young aspiring engineer having qualifications of B.E. Civil, MSW and B.Ed. and aspire to be a government servant in her field. The private respondent and petitioners are neighbors sharing a common road and the private respondent encroached the half part of the road. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the private respondent, the petitioner's family knocked on the doors of various revenue authorities and made various complaints and representations. Mr. R.K. Lal, who is the husband of petitioner and father of petitioner No. 1, a retired college professor preferred various complaints and representations before the revenue authorities. She also submits that on 16.09.2023 around 12.30 p.m. the Police Officers of Civil Line Police Station being hand in gloves with the private respondent arrested the petitioners from their place of residence and were taken to the Civil Line Police Station. However, various assertions have been made regarding the legality of the arrest and about the warrant of arrest and under which offence they were arresting the petitioners, but the Police Officers of Civil Line Police Station did not give heed to any of the queries of the petitioners and arrest them arbitrary and illegally.

4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the paying guest students residing in the house of the petitioners came up for help and asked the Police Officers of Civil Line Police Station regarding the reason for arrest upon which the persons in Khaki arrogantly threatened the students by telling them to keep themselves away from the matter, otherwise they all also will have to face the dire consequences. Thereafter, the petitioners were taken to the Civil Line Police Station and were put under illegal detention in a separate room, without informing the reason for arrest; under which offence and also the right to approach legal aid or to inform their relatives about the arrest. She also submits that the petitioner No. 1 made a number of assertions to know why she and her daughter were arrested, then petitioner No. 1 was subjected to Police atrocity in the hands of the Police Officers of Civil Line Police Station by dragging her inside the room when she tried to move outside by pulling her dupatta which got roped around her neck and was slapped as well inside the Police Station. The Police Officers of Civil Line Police Station took the petitioners before the Magistrate around 5.00 p.m. (worth mentioning that the petitioners were arrested around 12:30 p.m.) and directed the petitioners to wait for one hour and thereafter, the petitioners were sent