The Chhattisgarh High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail applications of two individuals accused of manhandling police personnel and creating a ruckus inside the court premises. While dismissing the pleas, Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha observed that court premises are neutral and dignified spaces dedicated solely to the administration of justice and cannot be used as venues for protests or public agitations.
Background of the Case
The case stems from an incident on November 15, 2025. The prosecution alleged that police personnel from Police Station Takhatpur had arrested a storyteller (Kathawachak), Ashutosh Chaitanya, who allegedly made derogatory remarks about the Satnami community.
While the police were presenting Ashutosh Chaitanya before the trial court, a mob allegedly unlawfully gathered within the court premises. The prosecution stated that the mob staged a demonstration, entered the courtroom, and threatened to kill the accused. When the police force intervened, the mob allegedly manhandled the personnel and obstructed them in the discharge of their official duties.
An FIR was registered at Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, under Sections 191(2), 221, 132, 296, 351(2), and 299 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against the applicants, Sanjeet Kumar Burman and Amrit Das Dahariya, along with others.
Arguments Placed Before the Court
The counsel for the applicants argued that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated.
- For Sanjeet Kumar Burman: It was submitted that the FIR was a “counter-blast” registered under political pressure to dilute the misdeeds of the opposite party. The counsel argued that a separate FIR (No. 1361/2025) had been registered against the actual perpetrators who initiated the chaos. It was claimed that video footage available on the internet showed the applicant was not present at the scene.
- For Amrit Das Dahariya: Similarly, his counsel argued that he was a student present near the court for personal work and was falsely named. The counsel relied on video clips to assert that the real perpetrators were visible in the footage intimidating police officers, while the applicant was not involved.
State’s Submission
The State Counsel opposed the bail applications, highlighting the criminal history of the accused.
- The State informed the Court that Amrit Das Dahariya has one criminal antecedent, whereas Sanjeet Kumar Burman has six criminal antecedents registered at various police stations for offences including rioting and obstructing public servants.
- The State argued that since the applicants participated in a demonstration within court premises and manhandled police personnel, they were not entitled to anticipatory bail.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha took a serious view of the incident, emphasizing the sanctity of judicial institutions. The Court observed that the allegations disclosed a deliberate attempt to undermine public order within the court precincts.
The Court held:
“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. The rule of law mandates that disputes and grievances must be addressed strictly through lawful and constitutional means.”
Regarding the status of court premises, the Chief Justice remarked:
“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. They are not meant to be used as venues for protests, demonstrations, or public agitations of any nature.”
The Court further noted that unlawful assemblies within court premises pose a serious threat to the safety of litigants, advocates, and judicial officers.
Decision
The High Court distinguished the applicants’ case from that of a co-accused, Gyanendra Kumar Kosale, who was granted bail earlier due to his upcoming examinations and lack of criminal antecedents.
Considering the “criminal antecedents” of the present applicants and the “distinct role attributed to them,” the Court ruled that the benefit of parity could not be extended.
Dismissing the applications, the Court stated:
“The discretionary relief of anticipatory bail is not meant to shield persons who, prima facie, appear to have participated in acts undermining public order and the sanctity of judicial institutions.”
Both anticipatory bail applications were rejected.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Sanjeet Kumar Burman v. State of Chhattisgarh (and connected matter)
- Case Number: MCRCA No. 1996 of 2025 and MCRCA No. 1999 of 2025
- Coram: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha
- Counsel for Applicants: Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre
- Counsel for State: Mr. Bharat Gulabani, Panel Lawyer
