Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Chhattisgarh Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal disposed of a petition while directing the State’s Director General of Police to review the conduct of concerned Bhilai police personnel, including the station house officer, and to take corrective or disciplinary steps if warranted, besides issuing standing instructions to prevent deviations in arrest, remand and custodial treatment. The Court recorded concern over the handling of a complaint arising from a trivial cinema-hall altercation, where the petitioners alleged they were falsely booked, subjected to mental and physical custodial torture, illegally handcuffed and publicly paraded, and made to chant derogatory slogans.

The writ petition arose from an incident dated 22.10.2025 at a cinema hall in Durg, where the petitioners were present along with their family members. A minor physical contact occurred between the wife of one petitioner and a woman complainant due to seating arrangements, leading to a verbal exchange. The theatre staff intervened and informed the police, following which police personnel reached the spot.

Also Read: Supreme Court Urges Govts To Digitize Land Records Using Tamper-Proof Technology Like Blockchain

Subsequently, multiple FIRs were registered against the petitioners under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita alleging assault, misbehaviour, and obstruction of public servants. The petitioners alleged that the police officials acted with malafide intent, illegally detained them, subjected them to custodial torture, handcuffing, and public parading, and violated statutory safeguards governing arrest and medical examination. They relied on video footage, medical records, and judicial observations made during bail proceedings to support their allegations.

The State contested these claims, asserting that the police action was lawful and based on written complaints, CCTV footage, and medical evidence, and denied allegations of custodial abuse or humiliation. An affidavit was filed by the Director General of Police explaining the conduct of the officers and stating that departmental proceedings had already been initiated against one officer.

The Court noted that the writ petition involved serious allegations concerning the conduct of police officials during arrest and custody. It recorded that “the present matter involves allegations of serious nature concerning the conduct of police officials, particularly respondent Nos.02 to 08, in the discharge of their duties.”

While considering the affidavit of the Director General of Police, the Court observed that “the Director General of Police has denied all allegations of custodial torture, illegal handcuffing, public parading and violation of constitutional safeguards, asserting that the police action was lawful, bona fide and necessitated by the conduct of the petitioners themselves.” At the same time, the Court found that the materials on record raised concerns, stating that “there are procedural lapses and actions on the part of the police authorities which warrant serious concern.”

The Bench noted that allegations relating to unlawful arrest, delay in medical examination, and alleged humiliation “strike at the very core of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee the fundamental right to life, liberty, and dignity of every citizen.” The Court clarified that it was not entering into disputed questions of fact, observing that “this Court does not find it appropriate to enter into a detailed adjudication on disputed facts at this stage.”

However, it recorded that “certain aspects of the incident could have been handled with greater care, diligence, and adherence to procedural safeguards.” The Court expressed disapproval of the manner in which the Station House Officer appeared to have acted, recording “serious concern and strong disapproval of the manner in which respondent No.2 appears to have acted, revealing a casual and hasty approach in the exercise of police powers.”

The Bench further observed that such conduct “has the potential to erode public confidence in the rule of law and cannot be countenanced in a constitutional democracy.”

The Court directed that “the Director General of Police, State of Chhattisgarh, shall ensure that respondent Nos.02 to 08, and all police officers under their command, are reminded of their obligations under the Constitution of India, relevant statutes, and judicial pronouncements, including the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar, Satyendra Kumar Antil and D.K. Basu regarding the arrest and treatment of accused persons.”

“The State Government and the Police Department shall take all necessary steps to ensure that procedures for arrest, remand, medical examination, and treatment of accused persons are scrupulously followed, and any lapses or deviations are immediately addressed through departmental action.”

“The police authorities are earnestly directed to ensure that no citizen is subjected to harassment, humiliation, or any form of custodial mistreatment, and that the dignity, liberty, and fundamental rights of every individual are respected and safeguarded.”

“Incidents of the nature complained of in the present writ petition will not recur in the future and that all police personnel shall discharge their duties in a manner that reflects the highest standards of professionalism, integrity, and constitutional propriety.”

“The Director General of Police, State of Chhattisgarh, is hereby directed to examine the conduct of respondent No.2 at an appropriate level, and to take necessary corrective and disciplinary measures, if warranted, strictly in accordance with law.”

Also Read: Father Staying With Second Wife Without Divorcing First Not Eligible For Custody; Child’s Welfare Overrides Father’s Financial Capacity: Chhattisgarh HC

“The Director General of Police shall further ensure that respondent No.2 is formally sensitised and counselled with respect to the binding directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar, Satyendra Kumar Antil and D.K. Basu, and that his future conduct is placed under effective supervisory oversight.”

“The Director General of Police is further directed to issue appropriate standing instructions to all units under his command reiterating that any deviation from constitutional or statutory safeguards relating to arrest, remand or custodial treatment shall invite strict departmental consequences, and that police authority must be exercised with restraint, accountability and scrupulous adherence to the rule of law.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General

Case Title: Sujeet Sao & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Neutral Citation: 2026: CGHC:3546-DB
Case Number: WPCR No. 11 of 2026
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal