1 2025:CGHC:61795-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 642 of 2025 Subra Singh Tomar W/o Virendra Singh Tomar Aged About 41 Years R/o A-01, Sai Villa, Bhatagaon, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Police), Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur C.G. 2 - Director General Of Police Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3 - Inspector General Of Police, Raipur Range, Chhattisgarh, Distt. Raipur C.G. 4 - Superintendent Of Police, Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. 5 - Station House Officer, Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. 6 - Rajesh Dewangan C S P, Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. 7 - Yogesh Kashyap S H O, Presently Posted At Police Station Kabirdham, District Kawardha C.G. 8 - Narendra Kshatri, Police Constable, Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur C.G. Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.12.19 16:39:07 +0530 2 Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 19/12/2025 1. The instant Writ Petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, seeks following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass a suitable direction to the concerned respective respondent No.1 to 4 to take disciplinary action against the respondent No.6 to 8 who violate the rules and law without proper justification by wrongfully confined the petitioner all night on 12/06/2025 without any order of Magistrate. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass a suitable direction to the concerned respective respondent No.1/State to pay compensation to the petitioner/victim for the human rights violation. 10.3 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the actions of Respondents No. 6 to 8, whereby the petitioner was kept in unlawful custody at the police station overnight on 12/06/2015, were wholly illegal and in violation of established legal norms. It is submitted that, as per law, arresting a woman between sunset and sunrise is prohibited except under exceptional circumstances, which are required to be justified and documented; any deviation from this principle is considered impermissible and mala fide. The petitioner, in the present case, was 3 taken to the police station during the evening hours without any lawful authority or proper justification. Once in custody, she was allegedly subjected to physical assault, intimidation, harassment, and threatening behavior by the said respondents. Such conduct, it is submitted, constitutes a grave abuse of power, infringes upon the petitioner’s fundamental rights, and is contrary to the principles of natural justice and statutory safeguards protecting the liberty and dignity of individuals, particularly women. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the instant petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the actions of Respondents No.6 to 8 were undertaken strictly in accordance with law and in the course of investigation of a duly registered First Information Report (FIR) against the petitioner herself. In addition, it is pertinent to note that multiple FIRs have also been registered against the husband of the petitioner in connection with related matters. These FIRs form part of ongoing criminal proceedings, and the police were acting within the lawful scope of their duties to investigate the same. It is further submitted that arresting a woman in the evening or at night is permissible where investigation or law enforcement requires it and is done under due authority, which is evident from the records of the ongoing FIRs. The petitioner has not pointed out any mala fide or arbitrary conduct by the respondents. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the material available on record. 4 5. Upon perusal of the pleadings and the material on record, the Court finds that the petitioner has sought directions for disciplinary action against Respondents No.6 to 8 and compensation for alleged unlawful confinement and human rights violations on 12/06/2015. The petitioner contends that she was kept in custody overnight without lawful authority and subjected to physical assault, harassment, and intimidation. However, it is evident from the record that the petitioner was taken into custody in connection with a duly registered First Information Report (FIR) against her, and multiple FIRs have also been registered against her husband in related matters, indicating ongoing criminal investigations involving both. The petitioner has not produced any material evidence to demonstrate mala fide or arbitrary conduct by the respondents, nor is there independent proof of physical assault or harassment. 6. Reliefs such as disciplinary action or compensation are premature while FIRs and investigations are pending, and granting such relief would interfere with the lawful process of investigation. In the absence of any violation of statutory provisions or infringement of fundamental rights warranting judicial interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petition is devoid of merit. 7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/Bhilwar