1 2025:CGHC:47961-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 510 of 2025 Sonu Vishwakarma S/o Rajkumar Vishwakarma, Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward No. 2, Vidya Nagar, Bemetara, P.S./ Tehsil/ District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Inspector General Of Police, Collectorate Premises, Kachari Chouk, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Superintendent Of Police, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) 5 - The Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 18.09.2025 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.09.19 10:28:44 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Samir Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondents / State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10:1. that, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or directions for protection of the petitioner and his family, thereby preventing any further abuse of process, by the respondent no. 5 and other liable police personnel's of Police Station City Kotwali, Bemetara. 10:2. that, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction to impose necessary cost upon the respondent No. 5 for causing harassment and humiliation to petitioner. 10:3. that, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or directions to the respondent state, taking note of suffering and humiliation suffered by the petitioner by granting a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh only) towards compensation to the petitioner to be paid by the State of Chhattisgarh. 10:4. 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.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a carpenter by profession who earns his livelihood through daily hard work to support his family. In the year 2011, he was falsely implicated in Crime No. 3 118/2011 for an offence under Section 379 IPC, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 118/2011 (State of Chhattisgarh vs. Sonu Vishwakarma). After full trial, he was acquitted by the learned Court vide judgment dated 21.03.2012. Despite such acquittal in the only case ever registered against him, the police officials of Police Station City Kotwali, Bemetara, continued to harass him by frequently arresting and detaining him on mere suspicion whenever any incident of theft or crime occurred in the locality or during festivals. His name was arbitrarily included in the list of “Hooligans Under Surveillance,” because of which he was often taken into custody for several hours, abused in filthy language, and defamed in society, as also reported in the news. Seeking redressal, the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act on 04.09.2023, whereupon it was revealed vide letter dated 12.08.2023 that his name indeed appeared in the said list, and though a notice dated 26.06.2023 was issued for appearance before the Police Anuvibhagiya Adhikari, Bemetara, no action was taken to remove his name. The petitioner also submitted several representations on 13.06.2023, 07.08.2023 and on other dates, requesting deletion of his name from the said list, but till date no action has been taken by the authorities, thereby subjecting him to continuous harassment and violation of his fundamental rights. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire action of the respondent authorities in including the petitioner’s name in the list of “Hooligans under Surveillance” is illegal, arbitrary and violative of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the 4 Constitution of India. It is submitted that the petitioner, who is a carpenter by profession and was falsely implicated in Crime No. 118/2011 under Section 379 IPC, has already been acquitted by the competent Court vide judgment dated 21.03.2012, and therefore, in absence of any subsequent criminal case, his continued surveillance is wholly unwarranted. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner has been frequently harassed by the police officials by calling him to the police station, detaining him for hours without any lawful justification, abusing him in filthy language and thereby defaming him in society. The medical records show that the petitioner was never found under the influence of liquor or drugs, yet respondent No. 5 has falsely implicated him and acted with mala fide intention by branding him as a hooligan. Counsel for the petitioner also points out that such arbitrary action amounts to double jeopardy and violates the mandate of Section 300 Cr.P.C. as well as Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, as the petitioner cannot be punished or proceeded against repeatedly after his acquittal. Reliance is also placed on Regulation 855 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations, which clearly provides that only persons leading a criminal life or posing danger to public peace and security may be placed under surveillance, whereas the petitioner neither leads a criminal life nor poses any such threat. On the contrary, the wrongful publication of his name and photograph in public with the tag of “Gunda” has caused serious injury to his reputation and dignity, not only tarnishing his image but also humiliating his family. Therefore, the impugned action deserves to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled to 5 appropriate compensation for the illegal harassment meted out to him. 5. Learned State Counsel submits that the representations submitted by the petitioner for deletion of his name from the surveillance register are still under consideration before the competent authority, and therefore, no cause of action has yet accrued to the petitioner to approach this Court at this premature stage. It is contended that once the authority decides the representations, the petitioner would have an appropriate remedy in accordance with law, and hence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the grievance of the petitioner with regard to inclusion of his name in the surveillance register can be appropriately addressed by the competent authority. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider and decide the pending representations of the petitioner for deletion of his name from the surveillance register/gunda list, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet