1 2025:CGHC:51573-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 545 of 2025 Anil Agrawal S/o Shri Sagar Prasad Agrawal Aged About 57 Years R/o Sai Sadan, Bandhawapara, Old Basti, Tehsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director General Of Police Police Headquarters, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Tehsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Inspector General Of Police Raipur Range, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The District Magistrate Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Superintendent Of Police District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Station House Officer P.S. Purani Basti, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Yogesh Kashyap Presently Posted As Station House Officer, P.S. Purani Basti, Tehsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.10.17 10:31:11 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents/State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “I. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writ(s), direction/direction(s) to the Respondents No. 1 to 6 to take appropriate legal or disciplinary action against the liable officer/Respondent No. 7 being violative of the provisions of BNSS/Cr.P.C. and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in the interest of justice. ii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass appropriate writ/writ(s), direction/direction(s) to State of Chhattisgarh taking note of the suffering and humiliation suffered by the petitioner and violation of his personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and illegal detention by the act of the officers of the State working as a separate instrument for a sum of Rs. 5 Lakh/Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation to the petitioner as per the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Smt. Anjulal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, in the 3 interest of justice. iii. 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the arrest of the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 299 of the BNS, 2023 is ex facie illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. The Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that no arrest should be made in cases where the alleged offence is punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years unless the conditions stipulated under Section 41(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. (now pari materia to the BNSS, 2023) are strictly fulfilled. The alleged offence under Section 299 BNS prescribes a maximum punishment of three years, and therefore, the arrest of the petitioner was unwarranted and contrary to the mandate that “arrest should be the exception and not the rule.” It is submitted that respondent authorities, particularly respondent No. 7/Station House Officer, acted in a mala fide manner and proceeded to arrest the petitioner mechanically without recording any justification or satisfaction as to the necessity of arrest. Posting a photo on an online portal or social media platform cannot, by any stretch, constitute an act justifying such arrest. 4. It is further submitted that this Hon’ble Court in Anjulal v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2024) SCC OnLine CHH 2278, has clearly held that deviation from prescribed norms regarding arrest and detention 4 amounts to a violation of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and entitles the aggrieved person to compensation. The petitioner was kept in illegal custody from 8.08.2024 to 16.08.2024, thereby suffering trauma, humiliation, and violation of his dignity and personal liberty. The respondents have grossly violated the principles laid down in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416, and Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260, by failing to follow mandatory safeguards against unlawful arrest. The arbitrary action of the police officials, being in gross violation of the due process of law, calls for appropriate judicial interference and compensation to the petitioner for the infringement of his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the offence registered against the petitioner under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is a non-bailable offence, and therefore, the arrest of the petitioner was carried out strictly in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the petitioner was produced before the competent court, and upon due consideration of the material on record, the learned Magistrate was pleased to reject the application for bail and remand the petitioner to judicial custody. Hence, the action of the respondent authorities cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 5 7. Perusal of the petition goes to show that the petitioner has neither annexed the remand order nor has challenged the same. Furthermore, it is evident that the offence registered against the petitioner is a non- bailable offence and that the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody by a competent court. Since the order of remand has not been challenged by the petitioner, the present petition challenging the arrest is not maintainable. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet