Chhattisgarh High Court Orders State To Pay ₹1 Lakh Compensation To Law Student For Illegal Arrest Without FIR And Mechanical Judicial Remand
Deekshitha Sharmile
The High Court of Chhattisgarh Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal on Wednesday (January 21) directed the State to pay Rs. 1 lakh compensation to a law student and hotel owner, holding that he was illegally taken into custody by police without any FIR alleging a cognizable offence and was sent to judicial custody through an unlawful, routine remand. The Court quashed the preventive proceedings and related police report that led to the detention, and ordered payment within four weeks, with 9% annual interest on default. It noted that the detention caused mental, emotional and financial hardship, and that custodial humiliation and loss of liberty triggered the State’s obligation to remedy the violation of the right to a dignified life.
The petitioner, a hotel owner in Bhilai, District Durg, filed a writ petition challenging his arrest and subsequent remand by local police officials. He alleged that despite operating a duly licensed hotel, police personnel repeatedly interfered with its functioning. On 08.09.2025, police officials entered the hotel under the pretext of inquiry regarding a missing person, checked registers, and later accused the staff of theft. The petitioner claimed he was verbally abused, subjected to caste-based remarks, physically assaulted, and illegally detained without being informed of the grounds of arrest.
The petitioner was arrested under Section 170 of the BNSS, 2023, and preventive proceedings under Sections 126 and 135 were initiated. He was produced before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who remanded him to judicial custody. The petitioner contended that no FIR was registered, no offence was disclosed, and mandatory safeguards under BNSS, including issuance of notice under Section 35(3) and communication of grounds of arrest, were ignored. The State, in reply, submitted that the arrest was preventive, following altercations with police personnel, and that due procedure was followed.
The Court recorded: “It is undisputed that no FIR has been registered against the petitioner in respect of any cognizable offence. It is also undisputed that the petitioner was taken into custody on 08.09.2025 by the police officials of Police Outpost Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, purportedly by invoking the provisions of Section 170 of the BNSS, 2023.”
The Court stated: “The record further reveals that the petitioner was sent to Central Jail despite the absence of any registered offence and without any material demonstrating the necessity of his custodial detention.”
The Court observed: “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.”
The Court recorded: “Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 confers power of arrest as a preventive measure and not as a punitive one. The provision is circumscribed by strict safeguards and is not intended to authorize routine or mechanical arrests.”
The Court stated: “Further, Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 mandatorily requires the police officer to issue a notice of appearance in cases where arrest is not necessary. In the present case, there is no material on record to demonstrate that the mandatory requirement of issuance of notice under Section 35(3) was complied with. The failure to follow this statutory mandate vitiates the arrest itself and renders the entire action of the police illegal.”
The Court observed: “The arrest memo placed on record, wherein the petitioner has specifically written ‘I don’t know the matter’, lends credence to the petitioner’s contention that he was kept completely in the dark about the grounds of his arrest.”
The Court stated: “Merely informing a family member about the arrest does not amount to compliance with the constitutional and statutory requirement of informing the arrestee himself of the grounds of arrest, as mandated under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023.”
The Court recorded: “In the present case, there is not even a whisper in the State’s affidavit to show that the grounds of arrest were ever supplied to the petitioner in writing, either before or after his production before the learned Magistrate.”
The Court noted: "The power of remand is not to be exercised as a matter of routine. The Magistrate is duty bound to satisfy himself that an offence appears to have been committed, that investigation has commenced, and that custodial detention is necessary. In the present case, where no FIR was registered and no offence was disclosed, the remand of the petitioner to judicial custody reflects a mechanical exercise of power.”
The Court held: “…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".
On these grounds, the Court held that the detention was illegal and resulted in a violation of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. It therefore directed the State to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation.
Before concluding, the Bench cautioned that unlawful remand and custodial excesses undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system. “Every such incident diminishes the credibility of the law-enforcement machinery and shakes the faith of citizens in constitutional governance. The State must, therefore, take earnest steps to sensitize police personnel regarding human rights, ensure strict adherence to the Mihir Rajesh Shash (supra) and D.K. Basu (supra) guidelines, and enforce accountability measures to prevent recurrence of such barbaric practices within the police force.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate General and Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General
Case Title: Akash Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:3546-DB
Case Number: WPCR No. 553 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
