Court Premises Are Dignified & Inviolable Places, Not Venues For Protests: Chhattisgarh High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Chhattisgarh Single Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha has rejected anticipatory bail pleas filed by two accused persons, declining pre-arrest protection and dismissing the applications in a case arising from an incident at the Bilaspur court premises. The prosecution alleges that a mob entered the courtroom when another accused was being produced, raised slogans, threatened to kill him, and, when police sought to restore order, manhandled and obstructed officers performing lawful duties. In refusing relief, the Bench said courtrooms and their immediate precincts must remain neutral, dignified spaces for the administration of justice and are not venues for demonstrations and held that conduct capable of disrupting judicial proceedings would not be treated lightly on the material placed.
The matter arose from anticipatory bail applications filed by two applicants apprehending arrest in connection with an offence registered at a police station in Bilaspur district. The prosecution case, as recorded in the order, alleged that on a specified date a storyteller accused of making derogatory remarks against a community was being produced before the trial court by police personnel. At that time, a group of persons allegedly gathered within the court premises and attempted to stop the police officials from performing their official duties.
It was alleged that the gathering entered the courtroom, raised slogans, issued threats to the accused being produced, and obstructed police personnel while they were discharging their duties. The prosecution further alleged manhandling of police officials. The applicants contended that they were falsely implicated, claimed absence from the scene, and asserted that the incident was a counter-blast to another FIR registered against different persons. Media footage and screenshots were relied upon to support the claim that the applicants were not involved.
The State opposed the applications, relying on the nature of the incident, the place where it occurred, and the criminal antecedents attributed to the applicants. The Court considered the case diary, the submissions of both sides, and the material placed on record before proceeding to determine the entitlement of the applicants to anticipatory bail under the applicable provisions.
The Court recorded that “on 15.11.2025 a mob unlawfully gathered within the court premises, staged a demonstration, entered the courtroom, and threatened to kill the accused” who was being produced before the court. It further noted that “when the police force intervened to control the situation, the mob allegedly manhandled police personnel and obstructed them in the discharge of their official duties.”
The order observed that the allegations disclosed serious conduct, stating that “the offence registered against the applicant/accused is serious in nature.” The Court took into account the antecedents attributed to the applicants and recorded that the case diary contained material substantiating prior involvement in criminal cases. It was specifically noted that “the presence of a criminal antecedent against the applicant disentitles him from seeking discretionary relief under anticipatory bail.”
On the issue of parity, the Court observed that although one co-accused had been granted anticipatory bail on distinct grounds, “the case of the present applicants stand on a different footing in view of their criminal antecedents and the distinct role attributed to them in the incident; therefore, the benefit of parity cannot be extended to them.”
The Court further recorded that “no individual or group of individuals is permitted to take the law into their own hands under the guise of protest, demonstration, or expression of grievance.” It stated that “any act of intimidation, obstruction, or violence, particularly against public servants performing their statutory duties, strikes at the very root of the administration of justice.”
Stating the sanctity of judicial spaces, the Court recorded that “the Court premises, including courtrooms and their immediate precincts, are required to be maintained as neutral, dignified, and inviolable spaces dedicated solely to the administration of justice.” It added that “any unlawful assembly or demonstration within Court premises not only disrupts judicial proceedings but also poses a serious threat to the safety of litigants, advocates, judicial officers, and law enforcement personnel.”
The Court further observed that “granting anticipatory bail in such circumstances would send a wrong signal to society that unlawful conduct within court premises can be undertaken with impunity” and “in cases involving disruption of judicial proceedings and obstruction of public servants, the societal interest must prevail.”
The Court directed: “this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application(s) of the applicant… are rejected.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Bharat Gulabani, Panel Lawyer
Case Title: Sanjeet Kumar Burman v. State of Chhattisgarh; Amrit Das Dahariya v. State of Chhattisgarh
Neutral Citation: 2026: CGHC:656
Case Number: MCRCA No. 1996 of 2025 and MCRCA No. 1999 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha
