1 2025:CGHC:47377-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2901 of 2025 Mithlesh @ Bablu Nishad S/o Ramsevak Nishad Aged About 25 Years R/o Rangkathera, P S - Gunderdehi, District Balod C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Home Affairs Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur C.G. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Superintendent Of Police, Balod, District Balod C.G. 3 - Manish Sende S.I. (S.H.O.) Gundardehi, P.S.- Gundardehi, District Balod C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 16.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.09.17 17:41:24 +0530 2 for the respondents / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and quash the Istagasa No. 02/2025 along with order of SDM dated 23.05.2025 and Istagasa No. 06/2025 along with order of SDM dated 04.07.2025 against the petitioner and take legal action, start judicial proceedings against respondent No. 3, and direct to compensate petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the care in brief is that the petitioner was falsely implicated by the Station House Officer, Police Station Gundardehi, District Balod (C.G.), in Crime No. 40/2025 registered under Sections 115(2), 118(2), 296, 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and was arrested on 25.02.2025. Thereafter, the S.H.O. threatened the petitioner that he would register more criminal cases against him and initiate externment proceedings to harass him, and in pursuance of such threats, the S.H.O. subsequently filed Istagasa No. 02/2025 on 23.05.2025 and Istagasa No. 06/2025 on 04.07.2025 under Section 129 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the SDM, Gundardehi, in both of which notices were issued directing the petitioner to furnish surety of Rs. 50,000/- for maintaining public tranquility, although there was no complainant in either proceeding and no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the petitioner had disturbed or was likely to disturb 3 public tranquility. Meanwhile, this Court had already granted bail to the petitioner in MCRC No. 2382/2025 by order dated 09.05.2025. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner are arbitrary, mala fide, and liable to be quashed, as the Station House Officer, Police Station Gundardehi, has been misusing his official powers by filing repeated Istagasas before the learned SDM, Gundardehi, without any supporting evidence or complaint, only with the ulterior motive of creating false grounds for externment of the petitioner. He further submits that such repeated and baseless actions clearly amount to abuse of process of law and a colourable exercise of authority, undertaken solely to harass and deprive the petitioner of his liberty. The petitioner, being a law- abiding citizen, is entitled to the protection of his fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which cannot be curtailed except in accordance with law, whereas in the present case, the respondents are illegally attempting to curtail and restrain his liberty without any justification. He also submits that this Court has already been pleased to grant bail to the petitioner in MCRC No. 2382/2025 vide order dated 09.05.2025, which itself shows that the allegations levelled against him are neither grave nor substantiated enough to warrant repeated preventive actions and therefore, the continuation of these Istagasas in the absence of 4 any credible material, complainant or evidence is wholly unsustainable, unjust, oppressive and deserves to be set aside. 5. Learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent / State vehemently opposed the submissions of the petitioner and submitted that the present petitioner is not a person of clean antecedents and as many as 06 criminal cases have already been registered against him, apart from two preventive proceedings (Istagasas) which have been initiated before the competent authority under Section 129 of the BNSS, 2023. It is further submitted that the petitioner has a consistent history of indulging in unlawful activities and disturbing public peace and tranquility, and therefore, the action taken by the police and the preventive proceedings initiated by the authorities cannot be said to be arbitrary or mala fide. On the contrary, such actions are necessary in the interest of maintaining law and order in the locality. It is also contended that the plea of violation of fundamental rights is wholly misplaced, as Article 21 of the Constitution of India does not confer any absolute right to commit offences or to act in a manner prejudicial to public peace. The repeated involvement of the appellant in criminal cases and preventive actions justifies the apprehension of breach of public tranquility, and hence, the preventive measures taken against him are in accordance with law and do not warrant interference by this Court. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 5 documents appended with petition. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner is involved in as many as 06 criminal cases and 02 preventive proceedings (Istagasas), which clearly demonstrate his continuous indulgence in unlawful activities prejudicial to public peace and tranquility. As such, no arbitrariness or mala fides can be inferred merely because preventive proceedings were initiated against him, particularly when the record reflects repeated criminal conduct. 8. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the petition, and the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet