SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 21969

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
ASHRAF BEG – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPCR No. 564 of 2025



Important Points

Arrest and remand to judicial custody on mere suspicion for a non-cognizable offence, without satisfying the necessity of arrest under Section 41 CrPC/Section 35 BNSS, violates the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, entitling the victim to compensation.

Subject

Criminal Law - Personal Liberty

Act Referred

Headnote

The case involves the interpretation of Section 41 of the Cr.P.C. [Section 35(1) and (2) of BNSS, 2023] and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was arrested on suspicion of creating a nuisance and breach of peace, produced before an Executive Magistrate, and remanded to judicial custody despite furnishing a bail bond, leading to detention from 25-10-2025 to 29-10-2025. The court found that the arrest was for a non-cognizable offence and the remand was routine and illegal. The primary issue is whether the arrest and subsequent detention of the petitioner without a cognizable offence constituted a violation of Article 21. The court reasoned that liberty includes freedom from humiliation and unnecessary arrest, and that Magistrates must not remand persons to custody as a matter of routine, especially when arrested on mere suspicion, as the power to arrest without a warrant is liable to be abused by the police. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is allowed

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ashutosh Mishra
For the Respondents: S.S. Baghel

Table of Content
1. petitioner's arrest and wrongful detention details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding legality of arrest and remand. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. legal requirements for arrest and judicial remand. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. precedents on arrest guidelines and compensation. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
5. finding of violation and award of compensation. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)

Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.07.23 18:02:57 +0530 CGHC010465112025

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.

1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State-respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief(s):

“10.1 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased call the relevant records pertaining to Istgasha No. 63/2025 registered by the Executive Magistrate Gharghoda, District - Raigarh (C.G.).

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release the petitioner from jail immediately.

10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to take suitable action against the officers misusing their official position in order to harass the petitioner.

10.4 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent/state to grant a sum of rupees 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lakh) towards compensation to the petitioner for suffering harassment and humiliation by him due to inaction of respondent authorities.

10.5 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which the Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper in favour of petitioner.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit on a complaint made by one Feroz Kashyap and taking cognizance of the complaint, the petitioner was called by the police at police station Gharghoda where the police pressurized the petitioner to compromise with the complainant Feroj Kashyap, when he denied the same, the petitioner was arrested with the allegation that he is creating nuisance in the police station and by his act there is apprehension of breach of peace and to maintain law and order situation, one Istgasa under Section 170/126, 135(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS, 2023’) was prepared on 25-10-2025 and he was produced before the Executive Magistrate, Ghaghoda where he was directed to be released on furnishing bail bond of rupees one lakh. The petitioner, though furnished bail bond as per the order passed by the Executive Magistrate dated 25-10-2025, but instead of releasing the petitioner on bail bond, the bail bond furnished by the petitioner was sent for its verification to the Revenue Inspector and fixed the case for 28-10-2025 and till then the petitioner was sent to jail. He would further submit that on 28-10-2025 the presiding officer was on leave and the case was fixed for 29-10-2025, whereas the other persons have been produced before the another Magistrate and they were released after furnishing bail bond and sureties. It is also submitted that on 29-10-2025 only the petitioner could be released on bail bond. He would also submit that there is no cognizable offence registered against the petitioner for which he was called to police station that too without any written notice and he was intentionally sent to jail by the police authorities as well as the State authorities. Despite furnishing the bail bond and sureties, the act of the respondents authorities is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He would also submit that the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for his wrongful detention as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has awarded appropriate compensation to the person compelled to face humiliation for wrongful detention in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The order dated 25-10-2025 is totally illegal and arbitrary

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top