The High Court of Chhattisgarh has issued strict directions to the State police machinery to ensure the dignity and liberty of citizens are safeguarded, observing that “any form of custodial abuse or harassment is wholly unacceptable.” The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, disposed of a writ petition alleging police excesses with a directive to the Director General of Police (DGP) to examine the conduct of the concerned Station House Officer (SHO) and ensure strict compliance with binding Supreme Court precedents.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an incident on October 22, 2025, at PVR Cinemas, Surya Mall, Bhilai. According to the petitioners, a trivial verbal exchange occurred between the family of Petitioner No. 1 and the complainant, Smt. Alka Gupta, regarding a seating issue in the movie theatre. The petitioners alleged that personnel from Police Chowki Smriti Nagar, harboring ill-will due to a previous case (WPCR No. 553/2025) involving a relative of the petitioner, intervened with vindictive intent.
The police registered Crime No. 1273/2025 and FIR No. 1274/2025 under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 74, 191, 126, 296, 351(3), and others. The petitioners alleged that they were illegally detained, subjected to custodial torture, and paraded in public while handcuffed, forced to shout derogatory slogans such as “Apradh Karna Paap Hai, Police Hamara Baap Hai” (Committing crime is a sin, Police is our father).
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners’ Submissions: Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that the police action was a “blatant abuse of police power” and violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. He submitted:
- The alleged offences were punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, yet the police arrested the petitioners without following the mandatory guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.
- Despite the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) directing a medical examination and explanation for injuries on October 23, 2025, the police defied the order, paraded the petitioners, and delayed the medical examination until night.
- The complainant herself later filed an affidavit before the Additional Sessions Judge stating the dispute was trivial and she had no objection to bail.
Respondents’ Submissions: Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General, opposed the petition, relying on an affidavit filed by the Director General of Police. The State contended:
- The narrative was exaggerated; the petitioners had assaulted police personnel, causing a fracture to Constable Kaushlendra Singh.
- Petitioner No. 2 was intoxicated and sustained injuries due to a fall, not police torture.
- The allegation of public parading was denied. The State claimed the police vehicle developed a mechanical fault and had to be “push-started,” requiring the accused to walk 30-40 meters.
- Procedural safeguards were followed, and the petitioners were remanded to judicial custody by the Magistrate after perusing the case diary.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court reviewed the materials, including the DGP’s affidavit and the video footage. While refraining from a detailed adjudication on disputed facts, the Bench expressed “serious concern” over the conduct of the police officials.
The Court observed:
“The conduct complained of alleging unlawful arrest, failure to observe statutory and judicial safeguards, inordinate delay in medical examination, and alleged humiliation of the petitioners, are matters which strike at the very core of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.”
Addressing the specific conduct of Respondent No. 2, SHO Gurinder Singh Sidhu, the Court noted:
“This Court records its 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, in clear disregard of the constitutional safeguards and procedural mandates governing arrest, detention and treatment of citizens.”
Regarding the nature of the dispute, the Court emphasized that the police must strictly comply with constitutional mandates, “especially in cases arising out of trivial or minor public disputes.” The Court stated that the object of its directions is “to safeguard the dignity and liberty of citizens and to prevent illegal detention, unnecessary handcuffing, public parading, or mental and physical humiliation.”
Decision and Directions
The High Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
- Departmental Action: The Director General of Police is directed to examine the conduct of Respondent No. 2 (SHO) at an appropriate level and take necessary corrective and disciplinary measures if warranted.
- Sensitization: Respondent No. 2 must be formally sensitized and counseled regarding the binding directions of the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar, Satender Kumar Antil, and D.K. Basu.
- Strict Compliance: The State Government and Police Department must ensure that procedures for arrest, remand, and medical examination are scrupulously followed. Any deviation shall invite “strict departmental consequences.”
- Standing Instructions: The DGP is directed to issue standing instructions to all units reiterating that police authority must be exercised with restraint and accountability.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Sujeet Sao & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
- Case Number: WPCR No. 11 of 2026
- Coram: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
