1 2026:CGHC:10667-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 124 of 2026 Sonam Sahu W/o Harish Sahu, Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 55, Lahanga Dehar, Sarwani, Baradwar District - Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent of Police Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 02.03.2026 1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. By filing of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.03.02 18:20:32 +0530 2 “10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to enlarge Interim relief to the petitioner. 10.3) That, this Hon'ble court may Kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ containing release order of petitioner and declare the arrest as illegal detention. 10.4) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to awards compensation to the petitioner. 10.5) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly take action against the respondent authorities in the interest of justice. 10.6) 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.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the police authorities of City Kotwali Police Station is wholly arbitrary, illegal and in complete disregard of the mandatory constitutional and statutory safeguards guaranteed to every citizen. He submits that the petitioner was picked up from her residence on 12.02.2026 between 2:00 to 3:00 PM without being informed of the grounds of arrest, thereby directly infringing the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the constitutional protection under Article 22(2), which obligates the 3 police authorities to produce an arrested person before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, has been flagrantly violated. The continued detention of the petitioner beyond the prescribed period without being produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class amounts to illegal and unconstitutional custody, rendering the entire arrest procedure void ab initio. 4. It is further submitted that Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 clearly mandates that no police officer shall detain a person arrested without warrant for a period longer than 24 hours in the absence of a special order of a Magistrate under Section 167 Cr.P.C. The respondents, in defiance of this statutory safeguard, have illegally confined the petitioner, thus making the detention patently unlawful. He submits that the alleged preparation of an arrest memo bearing forged signatures of the petitioner’s brother-in-law is a serious act of fabrication of official record. Such conduct not only vitiates the procedural compliance sought to be projected by the police authorities but also prima facie attracts penal consequences under the criminal law for forgery and fabrication of public document. The affidavit of the brother-in-law (Annexure P/1) categorically denies execution of any such arrest memo and exposes the mala fide intention of the concerned police officials. It is also contended that despite an objection/application having been moved before the learned JMFC on 13.02.2026 (Annexure P/2), specifically raising the issue 4 of non-production within the mandatory period of 24 hours, the same was dismissed without granting effective relief. This has left the petitioner remediless at the subordinate level, thereby necessitating intervention of this Court. 5. Learned counsel submits that the conduct of respondent No.3 is violative of the principles of natural justice, particularly the doctrine that no person shall be deprived of her liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law. The arbitrary deprivation of liberty without due compliance strikes at the very root of the rule of law and fair procedure. It is, therefore, submitted that the arrest and continued detention of the petitioner are unconstitutional, illegal and liable to be declared void, and appropriate reliefs, including issuance of writ of habeas corpus and initiation of action against the erring officials, deserve to be granted in the interest of justice. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the petitioner has been arrested strictly in accordance with law by the police of City Kotwali Police Station in connection with a cognizable offence. It is contended that the petitioner was duly informed of the grounds of arrest and that the arrest memo was prepared in compliance with the prescribed procedure. The allegation of forgery of signature is specifically denied and is stated to be an afterthought raised with mala fide intention to discredit the investigation. It is further submitted that 5 the petitioner was produced before the competent Magistrate within the permissible statutory period and that there has been no violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India or Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is argued that the present petition is misconceived, filed to obstruct the lawful investigation, and is therefore liable to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 8. The principal grievance of the petitioner pertains to alleged non- compliance of the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, from the record produced by the State, it prima facie transpires that the petitioner was arrested in connection with a cognizable offence and was produced before the competent Magistrate within the statutory period as contemplated under law. The remand order passed by the learned Magistrate has not been set aside and continues to hold the field. 9. At this stage, this Court, in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, cannot embark upon a roving enquiry into disputed questions of fact, particularly allegations relating to forgery of signature on the arrest memo. Such allegations, being factual in nature and requiring evidentiary examination, are matters to be agitated before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. The remedy of the petitioner, if any grievance persists regarding 6 fabrication of documents or illegal detention, lies in availing appropriate statutory remedies including proceedings before the Magistrate concerned or initiating action as permissible under law. 10. It is trite that a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable only when detention is shown to be ex facie illegal or without authority of law. Once the arrested person is produced before a competent Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody by a valid judicial order, the detention cannot ordinarily be termed illegal unless the order itself is shown to be without jurisdiction. No such circumstance is demonstrated in the present case. 11. This Court is also mindful that the power under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and is to be exercised sparingly, particularly in matters arising out of criminal proceedings where adequate alternative remedies are available. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. The same, being devoid of substance, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. It is, however, made clear that dismissal of this petition shall not preclude the petitioner from seeking such remedies as are available to her under the law before the appropriate forum. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu