1 2025:CGHC:18079-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 206 of 2025 Dr. Aparna Pandey D/o Muralidhar Pandey Aged About 27 Years R/o Flat No. 302 B Block Sagar Shikhar Apartment Opp. Mark Hospital, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary Department Of Home Affairs Of The Government Of Chhattisgarh, Police Head Quarter, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Inspector General Of Police Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - The S.H.O. Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7 - The S.H.O. Police Station ST/SC, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical Sciences (C.I.M.S.) Bilaspur, Through Registrar/ Dean, Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical Sciences (C.I.M.S.), Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 9 - Dr. Pankaj Tembhurnikar H.O.D. General Medicine Department, Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical Sciences (C.I.M.S.), Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 8 : Mr. S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 22/04/2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. Heard Ms. Madhunisha Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State / respondents No. 1 to 8. 3. The petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): “I. That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, and the SHO Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur, to arrest the accused Dr. Pankaj Tembhurnikar in connection with FIR No. 0104 of 2025, registered under Sections 74, 78, and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in the City Kotwali, Bilaspur, to prevent accuse/ private respondent from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; ог tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the police ofÏcer; II. That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction or any other appropriate writ Direct the police authorities and CIMS Administration to ensure that the accused does not threaten, intimidate, or influence the petitioner or any witness in any manner. III. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances, may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 4. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner is 3 a second-year MD Medicine student at Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences (CIMS), Bilaspur. In between 01.06.2024 and 29.01.2025, the respondent No. 9-Dr. Pankaj Tembhurnikar, the Head of the Department (HOD) of the Medicine Department at CIMS Bilaspur, subjected the petitioner to repeated acts of sexual harassment, including molestation and unwarranted physical advances, while also threatening to ruin her academic and professional future should she report his misconduct. In response to the said harassment, filed a formal complaint with the Dean of CIMS Bilaspur through the proper channel to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) constituted under the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The complaint was filed on 02.02.2025, though the ofÏcial acknowledgment of receipt was given on 06.02.2025 and the complaint is pending before the ICC of the CIMS. 5. According to Ms. Madhunisha Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No. 9 had been continuously targeting the petitioner since she joined the MD Medicine course. He frequently attempted to make unwarranted physical contact under inappropriate circumstances. Specifically, in June 2024, during the petitioner's Echo training in a dimly lit Echo room, the respondent improperly touched the petitioner. Upon resisting, the respondent threatened her with academic failure and other adverse consequences. On multiple occasions, the respondent forcefully attempted to kiss the petitioner. When the petitioner confided in her family and colleagues, she was advised to remain silent out of fear of social stigma and being a girl. Despite the petitioner's efforts to distance herself from the respondent No. 9, he continued his misconduct, exploiting his authoritative position. He also threatened the petitioner with false implications under the Atrocities Act if she resisted his advances. In 4 response, the petitioner submitted multiple complaints to the appropriate authorities, including the Doctor's Federation, seeking urgent action Despite repeated verbal complaints to the CIMS administration, no action was taken. The respondent No. 9 continued his inappropriate behavior, and on one occasion, when the petitioner was on duty alone, he forcefully kissed her and restrained her from leaving the room. When the petitioner reported this incident to the Dean, no action was taken under the pretext of avoiding institutional defamation. Thereafter, in October 2024, while the petitioner was on duty, the respondent No. 9 became enraged without provocation, removed her mask, threw it away, and forced her to remain on duty with him for the entire day. The petitioner later discovered that the respondent No. 9 had previously engaged in similar misconduct with other female employees, leading to their resignations due to inaction from the administration. Additionally, the respondent No. 9 was known to report to work under the influence of alcohol. While all PG students were rotated in their duty schedules, the petitioner was deliberately assigned duties with the private respondent, as he made the roster to ensure she remained in his proximity. The respondent also sent obscene and inappropriate messages to the petitioner. Upon blocking him, the next day, he verbally abused her at work. 6. It is submitted by Ms. Singh that no substantial action has been taken against the respondent No. 9 due to his influential position in the CIMS administration. The petitioner filed an written complaint to the City Kotwali Police Station, narrating all the above fact, in which an FIR was registered under Crime No. 0104 of 2025 dated 22.02.2025 under Sections 74, 78, and 351(2) of the BNS. The respondent No. 9 subsequently filed an anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Court, 5 Bilaspur. The learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, vide order dated 01.03.2025, rejected his application, acknowledging him as a habitual offender who had committed a heinous crime. However, despite this, the police have yet to arrest him, demonstrating the extent of his influence and power. The petitioner is compelled to take leave from her studies while the private respondent continues to discharge his duties, further jeopardizing her education and future. The respondent No. 9 started tempering the witness using his dominating position in the CIMS Administration and trying to lodged a false FIR under the Atrocities Act and the petitioner is getting calls from the ST/SC Police station that the respondent No. 9 has made a complaint against her and the police was going to register an FIR against her. The petitioner moved an representation before the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh dated 28.03.2025 seeking direction to SHO Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur to arrest the accused Dr. Pankaj Tembhurnikar under Section 35(7) of BNSS. As the offenses under the FIR are punishable with imprisonment of less than three years, as per Section 35(7) of BNSS, prior permission of an ofÏcer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police is required before affecting the arrest of the respondent No. 9. So, a letter was moved for direction to SHO Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur CG to Arrest the Accused Dr. Pankaj Tembhurnikar in the said FIR. However no head was paid to the letter of the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, and the accused is misusing his position and influence to intimidate the victim and witnesses. He is also attempting to fabricate false cases against the victim under the SC/ST Act and tampering with evidence. 7. Ms. Singh submits that the arrest of the petitioner is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper 6 investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the police ofÏcer; or unless such accused person is arrested. Hence, this petition. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Baghel, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent opposes this petition and submits that the respondent No. 9 has not been arrested in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 wherein it has been provided that no arrest can be made in routine manner and the Police OfÏcer would not arrest any person without reasonable satisfaction after some investigation and the matter is still under investigation. He further submits that after receipt of the report of the Vishakha Committee, the respondent No. 9 has been transferred to Medical College, Ambikapur and charge sheet has also been filed in the matter. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. It is an admitted position that an FIR has been registered by the police on the complaint made by the petitioner being FIR No. 0104 of 2025, registered under Sections 74, 78, and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) at Police Station, City Kotwali, Bilaspur. The anticipatory bail application moved by the respondent No. 9 has also been rejected by the learned trial Court. According to the learned State counsel, the charge sheet has been filed in the matter and the respondent No. 9 has also been transferred to Medical College, Ambikapur and as such, the accused respondent No. 9 is not in a position to tamper with the 7 evidences. If the petitioner has any grievance with regard to investigation or non-arrest of the respondent No. 9, she has recourse to approach the appropriate forum seeking redressal of her grievances. This Court may not grant any such relief as prayed for by the petitioner in this petition and the petitioner has other alternate remedy which she has not exhausted. 11. The petition being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to law before the appropriate forum, if so advised. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.04.24 18:55:36 +0530