1 2025:CGHC:55293-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 571 of 2025 Vijay Chaudhary S/o Shri Motilal Chaudhary Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Limbgoan Post Paikin, Teh Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Superintendent of Police Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Station House Officer P.S. Civil Line, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4. The Superintendent of Police Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 5. The Station House Officer Police Station Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.11.13 18:12:26 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastavas, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 13.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastavas, 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: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondents to provide appropriate compensation to the petitioner against his illegal detention, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ of mandamus or certiorari whereby set-aside the order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur, in furtherance of justice. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondent No. 1 and 2 to take necessary action against the respondent No. 3 for his unauthorized actions 3 whereby he has taken the petitioner into custody. 10.4 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondents to immediately release the petitioner from the Jail, in the interest of justice. 10.5 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is challenging the order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, whereby the application made by the present petitioner for extension of the date of surrender till 08.11.2025, as directed by this Hon’ble High Court in its judgment dated 08.10.2025 passed in ACQA No. 84 of 2016, was rejected. He further submits that the Hon’ble High Court, in its judgment dated 08.10.2025, directed that the accused/respondents in ACQA No. 84 of 2016 shall surrender before the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur within one month from the date of judgment, i.e., from 08.10.2025. 4. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is also assailing the illegal action and inaction on the part of respondent No. 3, the Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, who arrested the petitioner on 29.10.2025 despite the fact that the Hon’ble High Court had granted one month’s time to the accused persons to surrender. It is submitted that the said one-month period would expire only on 08.11.2025. The arrest of the petitioner prior to expiry of that period was in direct violation of the direction contained in paragraph 42 of 4 the judgment dated 08.10.2025. Further, respondent No. 3 failed to prepare any arrest memo after arresting the petitioner, which is violative of the procedure established by law, the due process of law, and the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is thus contended that the arrest was arbitrary and an abuse of power, resulting in deprivation of the petitioner’s personal liberty. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this Court, on 11.11.2025, passed the following order: “Heard Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Dy. GA for the State. Learned counsel would submit that pursuant to the judgment dated 08/10/2025 delivered by this Court in ACQA No. 84/2016 & connected appeal, the petitioners herein has been taken into custody, He would submit that even the application of the petitioner granting time to surrender has been rejected by the learned court of III Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 30/10/2025. He would submit that despite frantic efforts made by the petitioners, the concerned authorities are not providing custody certificate in favour of the petitioner and due to the said inaction the petitioner is not in a position to file an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Per Contra, learned counsel would submit that the police authorities got an input that the petitioner is likely to indulge in some criminal activities and as such he has been taken into custody. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur is directed to file his 5 personal affidavit stating as to why the petitioner has been taken into custody before expiry of the period granted to him for surrender by this Court in the acquittal appeal. He may also state as to why the custody certificate has not been issued in favour of the petitioner. Post the matter on 13/11/2025.” 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that this Court, vide order dated 11.11.2025, had directed the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur to file his personal affidavit. In compliance thereof, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur filed his personal affidavit on 12.11.2025. 7. The relevant portion of the aforesaid affidavit reads as under: “3. That, the brief description of the case is that, on the date of incident on 22.11.2013, the complainant Anil Khandelwal S/o Late Shri Dashrath Lal Khandelwal, Aged about 36 years, Resident of Beside 36 Mall, Uslapur, his old parents Smt. Vimla Devi and Shri Dashrath Lal Khandelwal lived in a separate house next to the complainant's house where, two unknown accused persons reached the house, entered through the Gate and rang the doorbell, thinking that, the victim of the case, Smt. Vimla Devi Khandelwal, opened the door, thinking her to be a maid, then the said two accused persons forcibly entered into the house, showed a knife and demanded money from the old parents and started threatening to kill them. Then they started threatening to kill the deceased Dashrath Lal Khandelwal and when the deceased Dashrath Lal Khandelwal protested, they stabbed the couple with a knife with the intention of killing them, inflicting serious 6 injuries and also injured the victim who was trying to intervene, took her inside the room and locked her up, looted the used watch and mobile of the deceased and fled away. 4. That, on the report, the subject matter of the case was registered and was taken into investigation. During the course of investigation, it was found that, the accused arrested in the subject crime number had committed the crime for money and after giving the stolen mobile to a fellow juvenile, destroyed the evidence by breaking the mobile. The sharp knife, motorcycle and blood stained clothes used in the crime were duly seized and have been submitted to FSL, Raipur for examination and testing The arrested accused were duly identified before the Executive Magistrate and the statements of the witnesses have been recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. 5. That, during the investigation, the accused Vicky Manohar Singh S/o Vansh Bahadur Singh, aged about 19 years, Resident of Madhuban Road, Nariyal Kothi, PS City Kotwali Bilaspur and Vijay Choudhary S/o Motilal Choudhary, Aged about 19 years, Resident of Mannu Chowk, Tikarapara, Police Station City Kotwali Bilaspur have been arrested on 25.03.2014. Thereafter, the child in conflict with law namely Jayant @ Jaswant Patel (co-accused juvenile) S/o Mohit Lal Patel, Aged about 17 years, Resident of Village Kena, Post Chatti Girola, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) was arrested on 27.03.2014. 6. That, after due completion of the investigation, the charge sheet No. 197/2014 vide Criminal Case No. 4792/2014 was prepared and supplementary charge sheet No. 197-A/2014 dated 22.05.2014 vide Criminal 7 Case No. 386/2014 was also prepared and the same have been submitted/filed against the accused persons before the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur and the Learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur on 20.06.2014 and 25.06.2014 respectively. Earlier, the Hon'ble Court had acquitted the accused Vijay Choudhary and Vicky @ Manohar Singh. 7. That, on appeal in the aforesaid case, on being sentenced to life imprisonment by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur on 08.10.2025, upon receiving the information from reliable sources/secret information the accused persons became upset and angry and threatened to repeat the same incident with the family members of the deceased Dashrath Lal Khandelwal. The information was received by the Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur from reliable sources on 26.10.2025 and 27.10.2025, whose Roznamcha Sanha has been registered vide No. 23 dated 26.10.2025 and Roznamcha Sanha No. 36 dated 27.10.2025 respectively. Copy of the Roznamcha Sanha No. 23 dated 26.10.2025 and No. 36 dated 27.10.2025 of Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, are being annexed collectively herewith as ANNEXURE R/1 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 8. That, in view of a recent incident of contract killing involving a murderous attack on 28.10.2025 at Masturi, on the basis of the above information and imminent threat and also keeping in mind that, such incident should not be repeated, the accused Vicky Manohar Singh was presented before the Court of the Learned 3d Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur on 29.10.2025 and the accused Vijay Choudhary was presented on 30.10.2025, who have been sent to Jail as per the order of the learned Court after the jail warrant was issued as 8 per law. 9. That, the Court of the Learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) vide its order dated 16.10.2025 in Sessions Case No. 63/2014 in the matter of "State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Vicky @ Manohar Singh & Others", has specifically observed the fact that, the accused in the case have been ordered to surrender before the Trial court within one month to undergo the sentence awarded to them and this Court has been directed to send the compliance report regarding the above sentence order, thus, as per the order of this Hon'ble Court, if the accused surrenders within one month i.e. by 08.11.2025, then the sentence warrant should be prepared and the accused should be sent to Central Jail Bilaspur to serve the sentence. Copy of the order dated 16. 10.2025, passed by the 3rd ASJ, Bilaspur in Sessions Case No. 63/2014, is being annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R/2 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10. That, thereafter, the Court of the Learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) vide its order dated 29.10.2025 in Sessions Case No. 63/2014 in the matter of "State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Vicky @ Manohar Singh & Others", has further specifically observed the fact that, in compliance of the Hon'ble Court's direction, the accused Vicky @ Manohar Singh was presented before the Court by Constable No. 49 Vikas Shrivas of Civil Lines Police Station, Bilaspur and the accused surrendered. The accused was identified by the Constable No. 49 Vikas Shrivas. The accused Vicky @ Manohar Singh was taken into custody. Thereafter, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Court, the sentence warrant of the accused Vicky @ Manohar Singh was prepared for serving the sentence 9 and he was sent on Central Jail Bilaspur alongwith the memorandum and copy of the decision. The accused has not paid the fine of Rs. 1200/-, therefore, a separate MJC should be opened for recovery of the fine. Copy of the order dated 29.10.2025, passed by the 3rd ASJ, Bilaspur in Sessions Case No. 63/2014, is being annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R/3 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 11. That, thereafter, the Court of the Learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) vide its order dated 30.10.2025 in Sessions Case No. 63/2014 in the matter of "State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Vicky @ Manohar Singh & Others", has further specifically observed the fact that, keeping in view the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Court, the application submitted by the accused for granting time for surrender is rejected as it is not acceptable. It is further observed that, in compliance of the Hon'ble Court's order dated 08.10.2025, the Constable No. 512 Vijay Sharma of Police Station Civil Lines Bilaspur after ascertaining the identity of the accused Vijay Choudhary, presented him before the Court without taking him into custody and without any arrest warrant. The accused Vijay Choudhary was taken into custody. Thereafter, his sentence warrant was prepared for serving the sentence and he was sent on Central Jail Bilaspur alongwith the memorandum and copy of the decision. It is further observed that, after the surrender of the accused Vicky @ Manohar Singh and Vijay Choudhary, their sentence warrant was prepared and they were sent to Central Jail Bilaspur to serve their sentence, thus, there is no further action pending in the matter and the case is closed. Copy of the order dated 30.10.2025, passed by the 3rd ASJ, Bilaspur in Sessions Case No. 63/2014, is being 10 annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R/4 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 12. That, on 11.11.2025, the office of the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) has issued a letter to the concerned Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur regarding custody certificate of the accused persons; in connection with Crime No. 726/2013, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur for the offence punishable under Sections 455, 394, 307, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC wherein, it has categorically been informed that, as per the decision dated 08.10.2025, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, the accused Vicky @ Manohar Singh is imprisoned in the Jain on 29.10.2025 and the accused Vijay Choudhary is imprisoned in Jail on 30.10.2025 and they are serving their sentence. It is further informed that, as per the records, the prisoners were in judicial custody from 27.03.2014 until their acquittal on 16.05.2016. In this regard, an opinion/guidance has been sought from the concerned Court (3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur) and accordingly, the Hon'ble Court, in its judgment in the subject matter, has not directed to adjust the period spent in judicial custody in the sentence awarded to them. Copy of the custody certificate of the accused persons, is being annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R/5 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 13. That, it is most humbly and respectfully submitted that, recent incident of contract killing involving a murderous attack on 28.10.2025 at Masturi, on the basis of the above information and imminent threat and also keeping in mind that, such incident should not be repeated, the accused Vicky @ Manohar Singh was 11 presented before the Court of the Learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur on 29.10.2025 and the accused Vijay Choudhary was presented on 30.10.2025, and they were taken into custody and thereafter, their sentence warrants were prepared for serving the sentence and they were sent on Central Jail Bilaspur alongwith the memorandum and copy of the decision. 14. That, the Deponent tenders his unconditional apology before this Hon'ble Court for any action which may have been done under a bonafide belief and the Deponent hereby undertakes and assures this Hon'ble Court that, he will be very careful and vigilant in future in making compliance of the orders/directions, issued by the Courts of law from time to time and the same would not be repeated in future.” 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. It is not in dispute that by judgment dated 08.10.2025 in ACQA No. 84 of 2016, this Court had specifically granted one month’s time to the petitioner and co-accused to surrender before the learned trial Court. Thus, the period available to the petitioner for surrender extended till 08.11.2025. 10. The arrest of the present petitioner on 29.10.2025 was, therefore, prior to the expiry of the surrender period and in clear contravention of the liberty extended by this Court. The justification sought to be advanced in the affidavit of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur — that there existed intelligence inputs suggesting that the petitioner might commit certain offences — cannot be accepted as a lawful ground to override a 12 judicial order. Once this Court had granted a definite period to surrender, it was incumbent upon the authorities to approach this Court for appropriate modification of the said order, rather than acting unilaterally. 11. The action of the respondent police, therefore, amounts to non- compliance with the order of this Court and reflects a disregard of the procedural safeguards forming the essence of the rule of law. The Constitution guarantees under Articles 20 and 21 ensure that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The premature arrest of the petitioner, without any order or warrant of arrest from the competent Court, constitutes a violation of these fundamental protections. 12. In this context, it would be apposite to refer to the well-settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nilabati Behera (Smt.) alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746; D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416; Sube Singh v. State of Haryana, (2006) 3 SCC 178; Hardeep Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2012) 1 SCC 748; and Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, wherein it has been consistently held that deprivation of personal liberty in contravention of law amounts to violation of Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and that the constitutional Courts are empowered to grant monetary compensation as a public law remedy. 13. Further, the recent pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 INSC 162, decided on 31.01.2025, has reiterated that even a procedural irregularity in the process of arrest—such as failure to communicate in writing the grounds 13 of arrest or non-compliance with judicial directions—renders such arrest and the subsequent detention illegal. The present case squarely attracts these principles, as the arrest of the petitioner prior to expiry of the surrender period amounts to arbitrary deprivation of liberty and non- compliance with a subsisting judicial order. 14. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, has tendered an unconditional apology, expressing regret for the action taken under a bona fide belief and assuring this Court that greater caution will be exercised in future. The apology, being unconditional and coupled with an undertaking for future compliance, is accepted. Nonetheless, this Court cannot remain oblivious to the fact that an individual’s liberty was curtailed contrary to a subsisting judicial direction. The State, as a constitutional entity, bears a duty to ensure that executive actions are tempered with legality, fairness and respect for judicial mandates. 15. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the arrest of the petitioner before expiry of the surrender period granted by this Court constitutes an unlawful interference with his liberty and amounts to a violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The said action cannot be justified under any purported intelligence input or administrative exigency. 16. Accordingly, while recording acceptance of the unconditional apology of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, this Court directs that the petitioner shall be paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation by the State for the unwarranted curtailment of his liberty. 17. The said amount shall be released to the petitioner within two weeks 14 from today by the respondent-State. 18. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan