1 2026:CGHC:22242 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4281 of 2022 Akash Singh @ Akash Pratap Singh S/o Bhanu Pratap Singh, Aged 29 Years R/o Malviya Nagar, Chirmiri, District : Koriya Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Inspector General of Police, Sarguja Range, Ambikapur, District : Surguja Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Of Police Koriya, District : Koriya Chhattisgarh 5 - Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Police Headquarter, Baikunthpur, District : Koriya Chhattisgarh 6 - Dhirendra Kumar Patel Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Police SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.05.21 16:00:46 +0530 2 Headquarter, Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (C.G.) Presently Posted As Additional Superintendent Of Police, Pakhanjur, District : North Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh 7 - Vishnu Singh S/o Late Dhunush Dhiri Singh, Aged 68 Years R/o Jhar, Patna, Police Station Patna, District : Koriya Chhattisgarh 8 - Prasan Kumar Kashyap @ Sunny S/o Jeet Kumar Kashyap, Aged 26 Years R/o Behind District Hospital, Prema Bagh, Baikunthpur, District : Koriya Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) For Respondent No.6 : : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. AG Ms. Aditi Parakh, Advocate on behalf of Raja Sharma, Advocate SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 12/05/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner prays for a direction to respondents 1 to 5 to pay compensation and damages for illegal arrest and detention of the petitioner from 24.1.2021 to 5.2.2021, in connection with Crime No.131/2017 registered at Police Station Baikunthpur, Distsrict Koriya (CG). 2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs in the petition : 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to 5 to pay adequate and suitable compensation to 3 the petitioner for the illegal detention of the petitioner from 24/01/2021 till 05/02/2021. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to 5 to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the respondent No.6. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to 5 to take appropriate criminal action against the respondent No.6 to 8. 10.4 Any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 3. The factual background of the case, in brief, is that a written report was submitted by respondent No.7 on 1.5.2017 at Police Station Baikunthpur District Koriya (CG), alleging inter alia that five persons along with an unidentified driver operating a JCB machine entered the land of respondent No.7, demolished a structure and committed various offences. The alleged incident took place in the intervening night of 29.4.2017 and 30.4.2017. On the basis of the said written report, an FIR bearing Crime No.131/2017 was registered against the five named persons and one unknown JCB driver for the offence under Sections 188, 294, 506, 323, 395, 427, 447, 448, 467, 468 and 120-B of the IPC along with Section 3(2)(iv) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the Act, 1989”). On 24.1.2021, respondent No.6 arrested the 4 petitioner from his residential premises. However, no written notice or information concerning the grounds of arrest was communicated to the petitioner or his relatives. The petitioner was subsequently produced before the JMFC, Baikunthpur, on the same day, where the Police sought his remand. The JMFC Baikunthpur granted one day police remand till 25.1.2021. Thereafter, vide order dated 25.1.2021, the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Baikunthpur, extended the judicial remand of the petitioner till 5.2.2021. On 4.2.2021, the petitioner moved an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While allowing the bail application, the Special Judge took judicial notice of a report dated 13.2.2021 and a communication dated 9.2.2021 issued by the Jail Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Manendragarh. These documents confirmed that the petitioner had been erroneously identified and was actually in judicial custody from 20.8.2016 to 20.8.2018 in connection with a separate case (Crime No.120/2016 registered at Police Station Podi), providing a clear alibi and lack of involvement. On 15.3.2021, respondent No.6 submitted a Final Report (Charge Sheet) under Section 173 of the Cr.PC against the other co-accused persons. Regarding the petitioner, the investigating agency conceded his non-involvement, confirmed his innocence, and a prayer for deletion of his name was made from the array of accused in the present crime. On obtaining the certified copy of the charge sheet, the petitioner discovered that respondent No.6 has fabricated the property seizure memo dated 5 21.1.2021. Through this memo, respondent No.6 purportedly seized a written report and photographs from respondent No.8. Subsequently, on 3.2.2021, a supplementary statement of respondent No.8 was recorded, which falsely asserted the petitioner’s presence at the scene of the crime. Thus, concocted documents were manufactured by respondents 6, 7 & 8 with the malicious intention to wrongfully arrest and humiliate the petitioner, without checking his manifest absence from the initial FIR. Hence, this Petition. 4. Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.6, driven by an ulterior motive to harass and humiliate the petitioner, fabricated a false record in collusion with respondents 7 & 8. The orders of remand passed by learned JMFC on 24.1.2021 and the Special Judge on 25.1.2021 are contradictory to the principle laid down in the matter of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273. He also submits that respondent No.6 first arrested the petitioner and subsequently fabricated the purported grounds of arrest, an act which is per se illegal. Hence, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, Mr. Anand Dadariya, learned Dy. AG for the State submits that it is the duty of the police authorities to register an FIR under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., set the criminal law into motion and initiate a prompt investigation. He submits that acting strictly in accordance with its statutory mandate, the police authority took lawful cognizance of the written report and the FIR 6 registered by respondent No.7. During the course of investigation, respondent No.8 submitted an application along with photographs with regard to the alleged incident of demolition of structure/house of respondent No.7 by various persons. He submits that the police recorded supplementary statement of respondent No.8 to identify individuals in certain photographs. Respondent No.8 claimed to be an eyewitness to the alleged demolition. He asserted that he captured photographs of the incident on his mobile phone. This witness stated that during the commission of the offence, the principal accused deployed several persons including Chandra Bhushan Sharma, Shabmhu Singh, Aazad, Avinash etc to demolish the structure and alleged that the petitioner accompanied them on multiple occasions. Upon being shown the photographs, he identified the petitioner. Based on this supplementary statement of respondent No.8, the petitioner was arrested and his name was included in FIR No.131/2017 as an accused. The petitioner’s custody was mandated by a valid speaking judicial order passed by the trial Court, which negates any claim of administrative illegality. He submits that on receiving a subsequent verification from Sub-Jail, Mandendragarh, establishing the petitioner’s alibi (custody from 20.8.2016 to 20.8.2018), the concerned authorities acted with utmost dispatch. A letter dated 13.2.2021 was immediately moved before the Superintendent of Police, Koria seeking permission to delete the petitioner’s name from the charge sheet and it was subsequently 7 deleted. He submits that the authority arrested the petitioner on an eye-witness account and subsequently corrected the error immediately upon discovering the alibi. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner was arrested on the basis of an FIR lodged by respondent No.7. No malafide intent or illegal acts can be attributed to the respondent authorities as alleged by the petitioner. It is the core duty and responsibility of the police authorities to maintain law and order and to preserve peace and harmony in society. As such, upon lodging of an FIR disclosing a cognizable offence, the concerned police officer is bound to record it in writing and investigate, as registering and acting upon such information is a mandatory statutory obligation. It is specifically observed that under the criminal jurisprudence, statutory powers are conferred upon the police authorities to act upon an FIR relating to a cognizable offence. Since Crime No.131/2017 was registered for offence under Section Sections 188, 294, 506, 323, 395, 427, 447, 448, 467, 468 and 120-B of the IPC as well as Section 3(2)(iv) and 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989, which are non-bailable in nature, the police personnel initially acted in the bona fide exercise of their statutory duties by arresting the petitioner along with the other co-accused persons. During the course of investigation, the supplementary statement of respondent No.8 was recorded by the investigating authorities 8 and upon identification through photographs by respondent No.7, the police arrested the petitioner and produced him before the trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody by a judicial order of the trial Court and not by any directive of the present respondents. Subsequently, it was only upon the receipt of information from the Sub-jail Manendragarh that the respondents came to know that the petitioner was in judicial custody from 20.8.2016 to 20.8.2018, a period spanning the date of alleged offence. Hence, upon realizing this factual impossibility, the investigating authorities sought permission for deletion of the name of the petitioner from Crime No.131/2017, which was duly accorded. Ultimately, the name of the petitioner was deleted from the charge sheet. 8. Since the arrest of the petitioner was predicated upon a registered FIR and a witness identification, and given that the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody by a judicial order, it cannot be alleged that the respondent authorities intentionally or maliciously imprisoned the petitioner. The arrest represents a case of mistaken identity corrected in due course, rather than an act of police atrocity. The detention itself was entirely by virtue of an order passed by a competent judicial officer. 9. For the foregoing reasons, there is nothing on record to show that the police personnel have committed any illegality or arrested the petitioner out of malafide intentions. Hence, the foundational 9 basis for claiming compensation for alleged police atrocities is completely missing in the present case. 10. Taking an over all view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to direct the respondent authorities to pay any compensation to the petitioner. 11. Consequently, the Petition, being devoid of merits, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay