1 2025:CGHC:16841-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 197 of 2025 Smt. Naseem Bano (Name Wrongly Mentioned As Alias Nirmala Bai In The Impugned Order Dated 28.03.2025) W/o Late Shri Dhannu Yadav Aged About 49 Years, R/o Ward No.-12, Station Para, O.P. - Chikahli, Tehsil And District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner-Cum-Detaining Authority Under The Prevention Of Illicit Traffic In Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, Durg Division, Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Of Police, Rajnandgaon, District -Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Station House Officer, Chikhali, Police Station - City Kotwali, District -Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr.Mayank Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr.Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.04.15 10:06:39 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 11.04.2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Mayank Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to passing of the impugned order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P/1), passed by the Learned Commissioner in Criminal Proceeding No. 25/2024. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P/1), passed by the Learned Commissioner in Criminal Proceeding No. 25/2024 and thereby, may kindly be pleased to issue order(s)/direction(s) for release of the petitioner from Jail. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.3-Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon, solely on the basis of three criminal cases 3 registered against the petitioner under Section 20 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), bearing (1) Crime No. 50/2008, (2) Crime No. 500/2008 and (3) Crime No. 384/2024, registered before respondent No. 4 / Police Station City Kotwali, District-Rajnandgaon, filed its report before learned Commissioner, seeking proceeding against the petitioner under Section 3 read with Section 11 of the Prevention of Illicit TrafÏc in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short, ‘Act of 1988’). 5. Admittedly, Crime No. 50/2008 and Crime No. 500/2008 were old and stale cases, wherein for Crime No. 50/2008, the petitioner has been acquitted by learned Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon, in Regu. Cr. Ist CJ II No. 226/2008, vide acquittal order dated 06.07.2017. Further for Crime No. 384/2024, a false and concocted FIR was registered against the petitioner, nevertheless, she was arrested by the concerned police of Police Station Chikhali City Kotwali. The petitioner filed a regular bail application before this Court bearing MCRC No. 4992 of 2024 (Naseem Bano v. State of Chhattisgarh), wherein this Court vide order dated 07.08.2024, after considering the fact that Crime No. 50/2008 and Crime No. 500/2008 are old and stale cases, further for Crime No. 50/2008, the petitioner has already been acquitted and also considering the other submissions on behalf of the petitioner, was kind enough to release the petitioner on bail and also instructed learned Trial Court to conclude the trial in Crime No. 384/2024, expeditiously within period of 6 months. 6. After the petitioner being enlarged on regular bail from this Court, the Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon solely on the basis of these 4 criminal cases under NDPS Act, registered against the petitioner, only on suspicion, without any evidence, submitted a report before learned Commissioner, seeking proceeding against the petitioner under Section 3 read with Section 11 of the Act of 1988. Thereafter, Criminal Proceeding No. 25/2024 (Year 2023-24) was instituted against the petitioner on 17.09.2024. Reply was filed by the petitioner in aforementioned criminal proceeding apprising about the three crime numbers, registered against her, wherein she pleaded that for Crime No. 50/2008, she has already been acquitted by learned JMFC by way of order dated 06.07.2017 and for Crime No. 384/2024, she is on bail and trial is pending for final adjudication, thereby criminal proceeding against the petitioner took place till 25.11.2024, which is also evident from the cases status of the criminal proceeding (Annexure P-3). 7. Crime No. 384 of 2024, was falsely registered against the petitioner and henceforth, after proper trial, the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Rajnandgaon, vide judgment dated 17.02.2025, was kind enough to acquit the petitioner from the charge of Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act in Special (NDPS Act) Case No. 14/2024, on substantial reasoning that the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution and there was violation of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, while investigation into matter. 8. On 28.03.2025, the police of Police Station Chikhali City Kotwali, called the petitioner at police station, for enquiring about her sister Hasina Bano, against whom the similar order of preventive detention was passed by the Commissioner in year 2024. The petitioner informed the police about the acquittal order dated 17.02.2025 passed in relation to Crime 5 No. 384 of 2024. Nevertheless, the police forcefully, arrested her and took her to Durg Jail from Rajnandgaon and since then, she is in jail. When son of the petitioner enquired about the aforementioned action taken by the police against the petitioner, he was informed that an order has been passed by learned Commissioner on 28.03.2025 (Annexure P-1), by virtue of which she has been detained. Consequently, the son of the petitioner informed about the order before the OfÏce of Commissioner, wherein he received the copy of impugned order dated 28.03.2025. 9. Vide order dated 28.03.2025, shockingly, learned Commissioner, without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, to place her acquittal judgment dated 17.02.2025 in relation to earlier pending Crime No. 384/2024, passed the order of detaining the petitioner for 6 months, substantially, on the reason that Crime No. 384/2024 is still pending adjudication before learned trial Court. Admittedly, the last proceeding as per the order sheets drawn in the Criminal Proceeding, fetched from the ofÏcial website of Revenue Courts, Government of Chhattisgarh, was held on 25.11.2024, thereby, directly, on 28.03.2025, the final impugned order of detention was passed against the petitioner, without granting her an opportunity to place her acquittal order dated 17.02.2025 before the Commissioner, and apprising about her acquittal, and vide impugned order it has been observed while passing the detention order that for Crime No. 384/2024, the trial is still pending before learned trial Court. 10. That, petitioner is innocent, she is about 49 years of age and is suffering from serious arthritis, high blood pressure and sugar, and also heart related issue, for which she is undergoing treatment and is in constant care of the Doctor. All the three criminal cases registered against 6 the petitioner was false and concocted in which she has been acquitted. There was no evidence against the petitioner, no complaint and no FIR apart from the three false criminal cases. On mere suspicion and on the ground that Crime No. 384/2024, is still pending before the trial Court, the impugned order of detention has been passed, while the petitioner was already acquitted in Crime No. 384/2024 on 17.02.2025, nevertheless, she was not granted any opportunity of hearing to place the acquittal order before the Commissioner, no notice was issued against the petitioner, prior to passing the impugned order on 28.03.2025, since admittedly, the last proceeding was held on 25.11.2024. Hence, this petition. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 28.03.2025 has been passed without granting proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, by citing wrong reason that trial in Crime No. 384/2024 is still pending against the petitioner. On mere suspicion, without any evidence, without any complaint and without any FIR apart from three crime numbers registered against the petitioner, wherein she was already acquitted, the impugned order of detention has been passed. He further submits that Crime No. 384 of 2024, was falsely registered against the petitioner and henceforth, after proper trial, the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Rajnandgaon, vide judgment dated 17.02.2025, was kind enough to acquit the petitioner from the charge of Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act in Special (NDPS Act) Case No. 14/2024, on substantial reasoning that the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution and there was violation of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, while investigation into matter. He also submits that the petitioner 7 forcefully, arrested her and took her to Durg Jail from Rajnandgaon and when son of the petitioner enquired about the aforementioned action taken by the police against petitioner, he was informed that an order has been passed by learned Commissioner on 28.03.2025, by virtue of which she has been detained. He contended that vide impugned order, learned Commissioner, without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, to place her acquittal order dated 17.02.2025 in relation to earlier pending Crime No. 384/2024, passed the order of detaining the petitioner for 6 months, substantially, on the reason that Crime No. 384/2024 is still pending adjudication before learned trial Court. Admittedly, the last proceeding as per the order sheets drawn in the Criminal Proceeding, fetched from the ofÏcial website of Revenue Courts, Government of Chhattisgarh, was held on 25.11.2024, thereby, directly, on 28.03.2025, the final impugned order of detention was passed against the petitioner, without granting her an opportunity to place her acquittal judgment dated 17.02.2025 before the Commissioner, and apprising about her acquittal, and vide impugned order it has been observed while passing the detention order that for Crime No. 384/2024, the trial is still pending before learned trial Court. As such, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 12. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned order. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the prayers and pleadings made in the writ petition along with the annexures annexed in this case. 8 14. A worst case of violation of human rights took place during arrest made by the Police, the Hon'ble Apex Court in D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416 observed as under: “20. In Joginder Kamar vs. State of U.P., [(1994) 4 SCC 260: 1994 SCC (Cri) 1172] considered the dynamics of misuse of police power of arrest and opined: "No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police ofÏcer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another….. No arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person's complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter." 21. ****** A realistic approach should be made in this direction. The law of arrest is one of balancing individual rights, liberties and privileges on the one hand, and individual duties, obligations and responsibilities on the other; of weighing and balancing the rights, liberties and privileges of the single individual and those of individuals collectively; of simply deciding what is wanted and where to put the weight and the emphasis; of deciding which comes first – the criminal or society, the law violator or the law abider………” 15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of D.K. Basu (supra), after 9 referring to the authorities in Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P., reported in (1994) 4 SCC 260. Nilabati Behera (Smt.) Alias Lalita Behera Vs. State of Orissa & Others, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 746 and State of M.P. vs. Shyamsunder Trivedi, reported in (1995) 4 SCC 262, laid down certain guidelines to be followed in cases of arrest and detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures. The said guidelines reads as follows: “(1) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations. The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register. (2) That the police ofÏcer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may either be a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest. (3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the articular 10 place, unless the attesting witness of the meme of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee. (4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town through the Legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest. (5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained. (6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest and the names and particulars of the police ofÏcials in whose custody the arrestee is. (7) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any, present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The “Inspection Memo” must be signed both by the arrestee and the police ofÏcer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee. (8) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every 18 hours during his detention in custody by a 11 doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the State or Union Territory concerned. Director, Health Services should prepare such a panel for all tehsils and districts as well. (9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred above, should be sent to the Illaqa Magistrate for his record. (10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation. (11) A police control room should be provided at all district and State headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the ofÏcer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous noticeboard." 16. From perusal of the records, it transpires that respondent No.3- Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon, solely on the basis of three criminal cases registered against the petitioner under Section 20 (b) of the NDPS Act’, bearing (1) Crime No. 50/2008, (2) Crime No. 500/2008 and (3) Crime No. 384/2024, registered before respondent No. 4 / Police Station City Kotwali, District-Rajnandgaon, filed its report before learned Commissioner, seeking proceeding against the petitioner under Section 3 read with Section 11 of the Act of 1988. Admittedly, Crime No. 50/2008 and Crime No. 500/2008 were old and stale cases, wherein for Crime No. 50/2008, the petitioner has been acquitted by learned Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon vide judgment dated 06.07.2017. 12 Further for Crime No. 384/2024, the petitioner was arrested by the concerned police of Police Station Chikhali City Kotwali. She filed a regular bail application before this Court bearing MCRC No. 4992 of 2024 (Naseem Bano v. State of Chhattisgarh), wherein this Court vide order dated 07.08.2024, after considering the fact that Crime No. 50/2008 and Crime No. 500/2008 were old and stale cases, further for Crime No. 50/2008, the petitioner has already been acquitted and also considering the other submissions on behalf of the petitioner, was kind enough to release the petitioner on bail and also instructed learned trial Court to conclude the trial in Crime No. 384/2024, expeditiously within period of 6 months. It further transpires that after the petitioner being enlarged on regular bail from this Court, the Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon solely on the basis of these criminal cases under NDPS Act, registered against the petitioner, only on suspicion, without any evidence, submitted a report before respondent No.2-Commissioner, seeking proceeding against the petitioner under Section 3 read with Section 11 of the Act of 1988 and thereafter, Criminal Proceeding No. 25/2024 was instituted against the petitioner on 17.09.2024, reply was filed by the petitioner in aforementioned criminal proceeding apprising about the three crime numbers, registered against her, wherein she pleaded that for Crime No. 50/2008, she has already been acquitted by learned JMFC by judgment dated 06.07.2017 and for Crime No. 384/2024, she is on bail and trial is pending for final adjudication, thereby criminal proceeding against the petitioner took place till 25.11.2024, which is also evident from the cases status of the criminal proceeding (Annexure P-3). It also transpires that after proper trial, the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Rajnandgaon, vide 13 judgment dated 17.02.2025, has acquitted the petitioner from the charge of Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act in Special (NDPS Act) Case No. 14/2024 on the ground that the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution and there was violation of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, while investigation into matter. Further, on 28.03.2025, the police of Police Station Chikhali City Kotwali, called the petitioner at police station for enquiring about her sister Hasina Bano, against whom the similar order of preventive detention was passed by the Commissioner in the year 2024. The petitioner informed the police about the acquittal order dated 17.02.2025 passed in relation to Crime No. 384 of 2024. However, the police forcefully arrested her on 28.03.2025 and took her to Durg Jail from Rajnandgaon and since then, she is in jail. The Commissioner vide impugned order dated 28.03.2025, without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, to place her acquittal judgment dated 17.02.2025 in relation to earlier pending Crime No. 384/2024, passed the order of detaining the petitioner for 6 months on the ground that Crime No. 384/2024 is still pending adjudication before learned trial Court. Admittedly, the last proceeding as per the order sheets drawn in the Criminal Proceeding, fetched from the ofÏcial website of Revenue Courts, Government of Chhattisgarh, was held on 25.11.2024, thereby directly on 28.03.2025, the final impugned order of detention was passed against the petitioner, without granting her an opportunity to place her acquittal order dated 17.02.2025 before the Commissioner, and apprising about her acquittal, which is per se illegal and bad in law. 17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, further considering the fact that after proper trial, the Special Judge (NDPS Act), 14 Rajnandgaon, vide judgment dated 17.02.2025, has acquitted the petitioner from the charge of Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act in Special (NDPS Act) Case No. 14/2024 (Crime No.384/2024) on the ground that the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution and there was violation of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, while investigation into matter, also considering the fact that the Commissioner without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, to place her acquittal judgment dated 17.02.2025 in relation to earlier pending Crime No. 384/2024, passed the order of detaining the petitioner for 6 months on the ground that Crime No. 384/2024 is still pending adjudication before learned trial Court and now the petitioner is in custody since 28.03.2025 and the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above- stated judgments (supra), we deem it appropriate to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and allow the petition filed by the petitioner. 18. In the result, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) is hereby set-aside. The petitioner be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu