1 2025:CGHC:33503-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 288 of 2025 Mahendra Chaudhary S/o Late Goduram Chaudhary Aged About 60 Years R/o Ward No.-13, Gharghoda, Tahsil - Gharghoda, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home And Jail Department, Mahandi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General Of Police Chhattisgarh Police Headquarters, Sector-19, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Inspector General Of Police Near Collectorate Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Superintendent Of Police Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - Sub Divisional Officer (Police) Dharmjaigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 6 - Station House Officer Police Station - Gharghoda, District - Raigarh (C.G.) --- Respondents AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.07.18 11:28:20 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy.A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 16.07.2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 16.04.2025 issued by the respondent Superintendent of police, Raigarh C.G. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities particular to the Superintendent of Police to delete the name of petitioner from Gunda list in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to take suitable action against the officers misusing their official possession in order to harass the petitioner. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which the Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper in favour of 3 petitioner.” 2. (a) Facts of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 16.04.2025 issued by the respondent Superintendent of police, Raigarh C.G., whereby given the permission to include/add the name of the petitioner in Part "A" of Gunda Badmash list only with mala fide intention and without assigning any reason or justification. The petitioner is a businessman, political activist and social worker in Raigarh District, the petitioner is permanent resident of ward no. 13 Gharghoda District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh, belongs to the family of Ex-army personal and he is also life time member of Chhattisgarh Chamber of Commerce and Industries. The petitioner has been engaged in number of social works, petitioner is a regular tax payer and being a public personality have engaged in number of social work including construction of toilets in Govt. school, providing ambulance/hearse in hospital etc. for betterment of society. Moreover the work of petitioner has been appreciated by the then Superintendent of Police, Raigarh. (b) According to the petitioner, his younger brother namely Surendra Chaudhary has contested recent municipal election against the ruling party as independent candidate and won with a huge margin for the post of President Municipal Council, Gharghoda. Furthermore, the business partner of the petitioner namely Amit Tripathy also contested election for the post of Vice 4 President against the ruling party, only because of the same the petitioner is being harassed and targeted soon after the result of election. Few days back, the petitioner came to know through the local news papers and whatsapp massages that the Superintendent of Police vide impugned order dated 16.04.2025 has given permission to include/add the name of the petitioner in Gunda Badmas list, on the basis of recommendation made by the Sub Divisional Officer (Police), Dharamjaigarh. Soon after the petitioner came to know regarding the impugned order issued against him he applied for the information in respect of the recommendation made by the Sub Divisional Officer (Police) Dharamjaigarh and received information that there has been mention of 22 criminal cases against the petitioner since 2001 to 2023, whereby almost 11 cases under section 107, 116(3) of Cr.P.C. has been registered, however, the petitioner has never received any notice in respect of such cases. It came to the knowledge of the petitioner that number of false cases has been registered against the petitioner under section 109 & 110 of Cr.P.C. however any notice was never issued to the petitioner regarding the such cases. (c) The further case of the petitioner is that after the impugned order was issued to the petitioner the petitioner applied for the certified copy of the case registered in the year 2023 which was closed vide order dated 19.01.2024 inter alia mentioning that no adverse report was received from the Station House Officer. As 5 far as the offence relating to Crime No.39/2001 registered under section 506, 507 of IPC is concerned the case was registered as criminal case no. 344/2001 and the same has been decided and the petitioner has been acquitted vide judgment dated 23.10.2008. Thereafter, as far as the crime No. 127 of 2001 is concerned which was registered under section 294, 323, 341, 34 of IPC has already been decided on 23.11.2002 and the petitioner has been acquitted. Thereafter, as far as the crime no. 147 of 2008 is concerned which was registered under section 147, 341, 149 of IPC which was registered as Criminal Case No. 28/2009 has already been decided on 28.11.2011 and the petitioner has been acquitted. Thereafter as far as the crime no. 79 of 2009 is concerned which was registered under section 365, 294, 506, 323 of IPC which was registered as Criminal Case No. 392/2009 has already been decided on 21.03.2012 and the petitioner has been acquitted. The crime no. 177/2018 is concerned, whereby the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 506, 427, 307, 34 IPC was registered and subsequently section 307 of IPC was dropped and the same has been registered has criminal case no. 252/2019 was only due to business rivalry which was letter on compromised between the parties. The petitioner applied for the copy of Istgasa of 115 of 2001 in the year 2019 and it was found that there was no such offence registered against the petitioner. It shows that the police authorities have only registered false case 6 against the petitioner and never produced before the Executive Magistrate. Similarly, the petitioner applied for the copy of Istgasa of 207 of 2006 in the year 2019 and it was found that there was no such offence registered against the petitioner. It shows that the police authorities have only registered false case against the petitioner and never produced before the Executive Magistrate. The petitioner also applied for the Istgasa no. 292 of 2009 in the year 2019 and it was found that there was no such offence registered against the petitioner. The petitioner also applied for the Istgasa no. 209 of 2012, 11/2013 in the year 2019 and it was found that there was no such offence registered against the petitioner. As far as the crime no. relating the year 2019 is concerned notice of the same was never served to the petitioner and the Sub Divisional Officer Gharghoda closed the matter by the order dated 26.10.2019. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not an habitual offender and the time line of the events would clearly show that the alleged criminal cases have been falsely registered against the petitioner. It has been further contended that the petitioner has not given adequate opportunity of hearing, which is violative of Principles of Natural Justice and amounts to infringement of fundamental and Constitutional rights. It has been lastly contended that the instant proceedings has been solely registered only to harass and humiliate the petitioner. Hence, instant petition be allowed 7 and the impugned order dated 16.04.2025 be set aside and a direction be given to the respondent authorities to delete the name of the petitioner from the Gunda/Surveillance List. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is continuously indulged in commission of criminal offences. It has been contended that even after initiating preventive action, the petitioner does not improve himself and continuous involved in commission of offences. There is possibility of creation of law & order and the conduct of the petitioner is required regular checking. Based upon the aforesaid proposal/report, the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG) after going through with the criminal records registered against the petitioner and taking into consideration the adverse impact being caused upon the people of the society, passed the order dated 16.04.2025, by which, the name of the petitioner has been kept in Gunda List. It has been further contended that the Director General of Police, Police Headquarter, Chhattisgarh, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar has issued circular dated 04.07.2019, whereby, all the Superintendent of Police (including Rail), Chhattisgarh have been directed to take effective action against goons/surveillance rogue, accordingly the respondent authorities, in view of aforesaid criminal offences registered against the petitioner, taken action against him. It has been argued that the impugned order dated 8 16.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) has been issued by the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh in exercise of the powers vested to him under Para 855 of Part III (Surveillance) of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations, which prescribes to keep a person under surveillance, who continuously indulged himself in commission of criminal offences and such an act would cause danger to the society. Hence, the present petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with writ petition. 6. Before proceeding further, it would be fruitful to quote Regulations 855 and 856 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations made under the Chhattisgarh Police Act. The said Regulations are as under for easy reference :- “855. Surveillance proper, a distinct from general supervision, should be restricted to those persons, whether or not previously convicted, whose conduct shows a determination to lead a life of crime. The list of persons under surveillance should include only those persons who are believed to be really dangerous criminals. When the entries in a history sheet or any other information at his disposal, leads the District Superintendent to believe that a particular individual leading a life of crime, he may order that his name be entered in the surveillance register. The 9 Circle Inspector will thereupon open a history sheet. If one is not already in existence, and the man will be placed under regular surveillance.” “856. Surveillance may for practical purpose, be defined as consisting of the following measures: (a) Through periodical enquiries by, the station- house officer as to repute, habits, association, income, expenses and occupation. (b) Domiciliary visits both by day and night at frequent but irregular intervals. (c) Secret picketing of the house and approaches on any occasion when the surveillance (surveillant ?) is found absent. (d) The reporting by patels, mukaddams and kotwals of movements and absences from home. (e) The verification of such movements and absences by means of bad character rolls. (f) The collection in a history sheet of all information bearing on conduct.” 7. In the matter of Govind Vs. State of M.P. reported in (1975) 2 SCC 148, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the validity of Regulations 855 and 856 of Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations has held that the surveillance is confined to limited class of citizens who are determined to lead a criminal life or whose antecedents would reasonably lead to the conclusion that they will lead such a life. 8. In the matter of Prem Chand Vs. Union of India reported in (1981) 1 SCC 639, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there must be a clear and present danger based upon credible 10 material which makes the movements and acts of the person in question alarming or dangerous or fraught with violence. 9. The Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Jorawar Singh Vs. State of M.P. reported in 1985 JLJ 556 has held that Regulation 855 empowers surveillance only on persons against whom reasonable material exists to induce the opinion of the authority concerned that such material shows a determination to lead the life of crime. 10. It is reflected from the pleadings of the petitioner, that the younger brother of the present petitioner namely Surendra Chowdhary has contested recent Municipal Election as an independent candidate and won with a huge margin for the post of President Municipal Council, Gharghoda. The petitioner & his family members are respectable citizen of the said town. Though the petitioner herein is not having any criminal antecedents which require surveillance under the Regulations 855 and 856 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations made under the Chhattisgarh Police Act, it appears from the fact narrated by the petitioner as well as the State that the impugned order dated 16/04/2025 has been passed, by which, the Superintendent of Police has given permission to include the name of the petitioner in Gunda/Badmash list. The impugned order has been passed by the Superintendent of Police without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner has never been noticed before taking decision to 11 include the name of the petitioner in the said list. The entire action has been taken against the petitioner behind his back which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice,. 11. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and further considering the Regulation 855 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations, we find that respondent No.4 has erred in passing impugned order dated 16.04.2025 (Annexure P/1) and named him in the Gunda List. 12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 16.04.2025 is hereby set aside. The respondent No.4 is directed to pass fresh order after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Amardeep/Shoaib