1 CGHC010221162025 2026:CGHC:32856-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 314 of 2025 Jamuna Prasad Gupta S/o Jokhu Gupta Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Boda, Tahsil- Batauli, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Vedram Chaturvedi Executive Magistrate/ Naib Tahsildar, Batauli, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Station House Officer Police Station Batauli, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Harish Khuntiya, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Kanhaiya Ram Yadav, Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.07.31 10:46:49 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 30.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Harish Khuntiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 & 3 and Mr. Kanhaiya Ram Yadav, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records pertaining to the case from the respondent authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 passed in Misc. Civil Suit No. 77 of 2021 by the learned Principal District Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur), District Surguja (C.G.) in a proceeding under Section 30 of Human Rights Protection Act, 1993. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate order, whereby responsible authorities/State may kindly be directed to pay sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the petitioner as compensation for mental and physical harassment to the petitioner for his illegal detention in jail custody for the period of 3 days. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 to take disciplinary action 3 against the respondent No. 3 for his illegal act, in accordance with law. 10.5 To kindly grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case including cost of litigation.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 22.09.2021, respondent No.3 arrested the petitioner in connection with Istagasa No.07/61/2021 under Sections 151, 107 and 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Cr.P.C.”) and produced him before respondent No.2. On the same day, i.e. on 22.09.2021, one Advocate, namely, Mr. Manoj Kumar Vishwakarma, filed his Memo of Appearance on behalf of the petitioner along with bail bond and Muchalkanama and prayed for his release. However, respondent No.2 rejected the bail bond furnished on behalf of the petitioner and directed that he be sent to jail custody for a period of three days, assigning the reason that the petitioner had raised a dispute with the concerned Patwari. Thereafter, on 24.09.2021, respondent No.2 passed an order directing release of the petitioner and, accordingly, upon furnishing the requisite bail bond, the petitioner was released from jail custody. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and no offence has ever been registered against him at any Police Station. He is stated to be a person of good character and reputation in the society and locality. It is contended that the detention of the petitioner in jail custody caused him humiliation and adversely affected his reputation, besides subjecting him to mental and physical harassment. The refusal of respondent No.2 to release the 4 petitioner and the direction to send him to jail custody for three days are alleged to be illegal and actuated by mala fides, particularly when the only reason assigned was that the petitioner had raised a dispute with the concerned Patwari. The aforesaid reason finds no support from the Istagasa submitted by respondent No.3. Nowhere in the said Istagasa has it been alleged that the petitioner had entered into any dispute with the concerned Patwari. It is also pointed out that the concerned Patwari had neither lodged any complaint nor submitted any application before respondent No.2 alleging that the petitioner had raised any dispute with him. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the very basis on which his release was declined and he was sent to jail custody was without any factual or legal foundation. 5. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the detention of the petitioner was wholly illegal and arbitrary, resulting in infringement of his fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is stated to have suffered mental and physical harassment, humiliation and loss of dignity on account thereof. Alleging violation of his human rights, the petitioner approached the learned Principal District Judge, Surguja at Ambikapur under Section 30 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. However, vide impugned order dated 28.02.2025, the learned Principal District Judge dismissed the petition, principally on the ground that the petitioner had failed to establish any ill-motive on the part of the authority in directing his custody. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said finding proceeds on an erroneous appreciation of the scope and ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 5 6. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the question relevant for determining whether the petitioner’s fundamental right to personal liberty has been violated is not whether the concerned authority acted with any personal mala fide or ill-motive. The real question is whether the deprivation of the petitioner’s liberty was authorised by law and whether the procedure adopted for such deprivation conformed to the constitutional safeguards guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He has next drawn attention of this Court to the judgment rendered in Satish Kumar Chandra v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, WPCR No. 137 of 2024, decided on 13.08.2024, wherein the issue of illegal detention in proceedings initiated under Sections 151, 107 and 116 of the Cr.P.C. and the consequential entitlement to compensation came up for consideration. In the said case, as submitted, the petitioner therein was arrested by the police on the basis of an Istagasa under Sections 151, 107 and 116(3) of the Cr.P.C. on the allegation of apprehension of breach of peace arising out of a land dispute. On the basis of the said Istagasa, the concerned Executive Magistrate directed the petitioner therein to furnish two solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each and to execute a bond of an equivalent amount. As the petitioner could not furnish the requisite sureties, he was sent to jail custody. Subsequently, on 09.02.2024, upon production of the Kisan Kitab and guarantor and execution of the requisite bond, he was directed to be released from jail custody. It was specifically urged in the aforesaid case that the petitioner therein had not been arrested in connection with commission of any offence under the IPC and that no report had been lodged either against him or at any Police Station alleging commission of any offence. The contention was that Section 151 of the 6 Cr.P.C. merely authorises preventive arrest for the purpose of preventing the commission of a cognizable offence and that a person arrested under the said provision cannot be detained for a period exceeding twenty-four hours unless his further detention is authorised under some other provision of law. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the statutory scheme, this Court examined the scope of Section 151 of the Cr.P.C. and observed that the power conferred thereunder is preventive in nature. The provision, as noticed by this Court, does not contemplate any penal consequence. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this Court, in the aforesaid judgment, reiterated the settled principle that the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to live with dignity and self-esteem. Liberty, as observed therein, necessarily includes freedom from humiliation and unnecessary, false or mischievous arrest, and indignities at the hands of authorities may, in an appropriate case, amount to police excesses. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 1. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the concept of harassment and held that it includes mental annoyance, distress, vexation, molestation, trouble and disturbance. It was further observed that mental and psychological harassment may also constitute torture and that any treatment meted out to an accused while in custody which causes humiliation and mental trauma corrodes the concept of human dignity. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that this Court in 7 Satish Kumar Chandra (supra), categorically held that merely on suspicion, a person against whom commission of a cognizable or non- bailable offence is not made out cannot be arrested or remanded to judicial custody. While considering the provisions of Section 107 of the Cr.P.C., this Court also observed that, upon receipt of the information contemplated under the said provision, the person concerned is required to be afforded an opportunity to show cause as to why he should not be ordered to execute a bond. Ultimately, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court recorded a categorical finding that the right to life and liberty of the petitioner therein, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, had been violated. Consequently, compensation of Rs.25,000/- was awarded, with a direction to the State Government to pay the said amount to the petitioner within a period of thirty days. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of. 9. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The petitioner herein was also arrested in connection with proceedings under Sections 151, 107 and 116 of the Cr.P.C. and was thereafter sent to jail custody. There was, however, no allegation against him regarding commission of any actual cognizable offence. The legality of his detention, therefore, had to be examined keeping in view the preventive nature of Section 151 of the Cr.P.C. as well as the constitutional protection afforded under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Particular emphasis has been laid on the fact that the petitioner was sent to jail custody for three days despite the fact that an Advocate had appeared on his behalf and had furnished bail bond and Muchalkanama on the very date of his production 8 before respondent No.2. The reason assigned for rejecting the bail bond, namely, that the petitioner had raised a dispute with the concerned Patwari, is stated to be unsupported either by the Istagasa or by any complaint or application submitted by the concerned Patwari. It is, therefore, argued that there was no lawful justification for depriving the petitioner of his personal liberty for a period of three days. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the constitutional protection of personal liberty under Article 21 cannot be diluted merely because the proceedings are described as preventive proceedings. Preventive jurisdiction is intended to prevent a possible breach of peace or commission of an offence and cannot be permitted to be exercised as a means of punishment or for settling a dispute between private parties. The consequence of the detention, according to the petitioner, was not confined merely to physical restraint. It is submitted that the petitioner was subjected to mental and physical harassment, humiliation and injury to his reputation and self-esteem. The principles laid down by this Court in Satish Kumar Chandra (supra) are, therefore, relied upon to contend that compensation may be granted where illegal detention results in infringement of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami and Another v. State of Uttaranchal and Others, reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1, to contend that the liberty of a citizen is a valuable constitutional right and cannot be curtailed except in accordance with the procedure 9 established by law. It is further argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently recognised the power of constitutional Courts to award monetary compensation in cases involving violation of fundamental rights, particularly the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Such compensation, according to learned counsel, constitutes a public law remedy for the wrong committed by the State authorities and is distinct from any other remedy that may otherwise be available to the aggrieved person. 12. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Principal District Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur), District Surguja (C.G.) committed an error of law in dismissing the petitioner’s claim merely on the ground that no ill-motive had been established against the authority. The approach adopted in the impugned order is stated to be contrary to the constitutional principles governing personal liberty and the law laid down by this Court in Satish Kumar Chandra (supra). 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 is arbitrary, unreasonable and unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. In view of the alleged violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right to life and personal liberty, he is stated to be entitled to appropriate compensation for the illegal detention, mental and physical harassment, humiliation and infringement of his human rights. 14. In the result, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the present petition be allowed, the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 passed by the 10 learned Principal District Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur), District Surguja (C.G.) be set aside and appropriate compensation be awarded to the petitioner for the alleged illegal deprivation of his personal liberty and the consequent violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 15. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the grievance raised by the petitioner is misconceived and does not disclose any ground warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. According to him, the petitioner has not placed the complete and relevant facts and documents before this Court and has, therefore, failed to make a full and fair disclosure of the material facts. It is submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 22.09.2021 in connection with Istagasa No.07/61/2021 under Sections 151, 107 and 116 of the Cr.P.C. and was produced before respondent No.2. Though an Advocate appeared on his behalf and furnished the bail bond and Muchalkanama, respondent No.2 declined to accept the same and directed that the petitioner be sent to jail custody for three days on the ground that he had raised a dispute with the concerned Patwari. 16. The aforesaid circumstances, according to learned State counsel, do not by themselves establish any violation of the petitioner’s human rights or any mala fide exercise of power by the authorities. The petitioner was dealt with in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Cr.P.C. and the proceedings were undertaken by the competent authority in exercise of its lawful jurisdiction. The competent authority, upon consideration of the material on record, has specifically found that the 11 petitioner failed to produce any cogent or reliable material showing that the action taken against him was contrary to law or actuated by mala fide or previous enmity. The allegation of personal grudge was merely asserted and remained wholly unsubstantiated. 17. It is further contended by the learned State counsel that the allegation regarding an alleged demand of money by the Reader of the Executive Magistrate was not made in the petitioner’s original application and was introduced subsequently. Such a belated allegation, unsupported by any independent material, could not furnish a basis for recording a finding of mala fide or violation of human rights. The competent authority, after examining the material available on record, rightly concluded that the petitioner failed to establish that he had been maliciously sent to jail or that his human rights had been infringed. Mere detention pursuant to proceedings undertaken under the Cr.P.C., in the absence of proof of illegality, mala fide or abuse of process, cannot by itself give rise to a claim for compensation. 18. Learned State counsel also submits that no material has been brought on record to substantiate the quantum of compensation claimed by the petitioner. The proceedings initiated under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 were considered by the competent authority in the light of the applicable statutory provisions, and the petitioner failed to establish the essential ingredients necessary for grant of the relief sought by him. The proceedings were conducted fairly and in accordance with law, and adequate opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to present his case and lead evidence. Despite such opportunity, he neither led any evidence 12 nor sought permission to examine or cross-examine any particular witness. The allegation of denial of fair opportunity or violation of the principles of natural justice is, therefore, without substance. 19. As regards the impugned order, learned State counsel submits that the same has been passed by the competent judicial authority after considering the material available on record and recording reasons on the issues arising for consideration. The order is neither without jurisdiction nor vitiated by any procedural illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error. Mere dissatisfaction of the petitioner with the conclusions reached by the competent authority cannot constitute a ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly when no material has been produced to demonstrate that the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. 20. It is lastly submitted by the learned State counsel that the petitioner has failed to establish any specific illegality, arbitrariness, mala fide action, violation of the principles of natural justice or infringement of any fundamental or human right. The allegations contained in the writ petition are vague and unsupported by reliable material and do not disclose any enforceable right warranting exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Learned State counsel, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition, as the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed. 21. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that, in the year 2021, respondent No.2 was posted as Executive Magistrate, Tahsil Batauli, District Surguja and, on 22.09.2021, Constable No.667, namely, Shri Mahendra Kumar Nag, produced the petitioner before him along with 13 Istagasa No.07/61/2021 under Section 151 of the Cr.P.C. He further submitted that, on the basis of the police report apprehending breach of peace, proceedings under Sections 107 and 116 of the Cr.P.C. were initiated. Upon consideration of the material contained in the Istagasa, respondent No.2 passed the requisite preliminary order, which was read over and explained to the petitioner and a copy thereof was supplied to him. Though the petitioner furnished bond and surety, considering the circumstances disclosed in the Istagasa, including the dispute with the concerned Patwari, he was directed to remain in custody till 24.09.2021. 22. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 further stated that on 24.09.2021, the petitioner was directed to be released on furnishing the requisite bail bond. Thereafter, on 08.10.2021, his surety was accepted and, on 29.10.2021, the petitioner furnished the final bond of Rs.5,000/- for keeping peace and not involving himself in any offence, whereafter the proceedings were concluded. Thus, according to learned counsel, the entire proceedings were conducted by respondent No.2 in accordance with law and in exercise of the jurisdiction vested under the Cr.P.C. 23. It is further submitted that the petitioner subsequently instituted Miscellaneous Civil Suit No.77/2021 under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 seeking compensation on the allegation of violation of his human rights. The learned Principal District Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur), District Surguja (C.G.), after considering the pleadings and evidence, dismissed the claim vide order dated 28.02.2025. The Court also found that the allegation regarding absence of any dispute with the Patwari was not supported by the record and that the petitioner had failed to establish 14 any mala fide or illegality on the part of respondent No.2. 24. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that respondent No.2 acted bona fide in discharge of his official duties and there is no material indicating personal enmity, mala fide, procedural illegality or abuse of authority. The findings recorded by the learned Principal District Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur), District Surguja (C.G.) are based on the material available on record and do not suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error. The petitioner, therefore, has failed to make out any ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 25. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the pleadings, the material available on record and the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur), District Surguja (C.G.). 26. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that, although he had been proceeded against under Sections 151, 107 and 116 of the Cr.P.C., the bail bond and Muchalkanama furnished on his behalf on 22.09.2021 were not accepted and he was directed to remain in custody for three days. According to the petitioner, such detention was illegal and violative of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, particularly as the reason assigned for declining his release was an alleged dispute with the concerned Patwari. 27. There can be no dispute with the proposition that the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is of paramount importance and that preventive proceedings cannot be 15 permitted to become a substitute for punitive action. At the same time, every detention or restriction upon personal liberty arising in the course of proceedings under law cannot, by itself, be treated as an infringement of Article 21. The petitioner must establish that the deprivation of his liberty was without authority of law or that the procedure adopted by the competent authority was fundamentally contrary to the statutory or constitutional safeguards. 28. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was produced before respondent No.2 on the basis of Istagasa No.07/61/2021 submitted by the police and that proceedings under Sections 151, 107 and 116 of the Cr.P.C. were initiated. The material placed before the Executive Magistrate was considered and the requisite preliminary order was passed. The petitioner was informed of the substance of the proceedings and was thereafter dealt with in accordance with the procedure adopted in the said proceedings. On 24.09.2021, he was directed to be released on furnishing the requisite bail bond and, subsequently, after furnishing the final bond on 29.10.2021, the proceedings were brought to an end. 29. The contention that the petitioner was sent to custody merely on account of a personal dispute with the Patwari also does not persuade us to hold that the entire proceedings were without jurisdiction. The learned Principal District Judge, upon appreciation of the material placed before him, has recorded a finding that the existence of circumstances relating to the dispute with the Patwari could not be said to be wholly unsupported by the record. The said finding is based upon the material considered by the learned Court and has not been shown to be perverse or based on no 16 evidence. 30. It is also significant that the petitioner has not placed before this Court any material establishing that respondent No.2 acted out of personal enmity, with an ulterior motive or for any collateral purpose. The subsequent allegation regarding demand of money by the Reader of the Executive Magistrate was admittedly not part of the original grievance and has not been supported by any independent or cogent material. Such an allegation, raised subsequently, cannot by itself establish mala fide or render the otherwise lawful proceedings unconstitutional. 31. The decision relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in Satish Kumar Chandra (supra) does not advance the petitioner’s case on the facts presently before us. The said decision reiterates the constitutional protection of personal liberty and the preventive nature of Section 151 of the Cr.P.C.; however, the applicability of the principles laid down therein necessarily depends upon the facts and material establishing unlawful deprivation of liberty. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate, by cogent material, that his custody was wholly without authority of law or that respondent No.2 had acted beyond the jurisdiction vested in him. 32. We are also unable to accept the submission that the mere fact that an Advocate had appeared on behalf of the petitioner and furnished bail bond and Muchalkanama necessarily conferred upon the petitioner an indefeasible right to immediate release. The question whether the petitioner was required to be released in the pending preventive proceedings was to be considered by the competent authority in the light 17 of the material and circumstances placed before it. Unless the exercise of such jurisdiction is shown to be arbitrary, wholly without authority or actuated by mala fide, the same cannot be characterised as a violation of Article 21 merely because the petitioner was required to remain in custody for a limited period. 33. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner in Mehmood Nayyar Azam (supra) and Inder Mohan Goswami (supra) lay down important principles concerning personal liberty, human dignity and the power of constitutional Courts to grant compensation for established violations of fundamental rights. However, the existence of such jurisdiction does not dispense with the requirement of first establishing an actionable violation of a fundamental right. Compensation under public law cannot be awarded merely because a person has undergone custody in the course of proceedings undertaken by a competent authority under the statutory framework. 34. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to establish any such actionable violation. The proceedings were initiated on the basis of a police Istagasa; the competent Executive Magistrate exercised jurisdiction under the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C.; the petitioner was subsequently released on furnishing the requisite bond; and the proceedings were ultimately concluded after acceptance of his final bond. The material on record does not establish that respondent No.2 acted with mala fide, personal animosity or for any purpose extraneous to the proceedings before him. 35. It is equally relevant that the petitioner had an opportunity before the 18 learned Principal District Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur), District Surguja (C.G.) to substantiate his allegations by leading appropriate evidence. However, the learned Principal District Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur), District Surguja (C.G.), upon consideration of the material available on record, found that the allegations of mala fide and illegal action were not established. We find no perversity, material illegality or jurisdictional error in the said findings warranting interference in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 36. The power of judicial review under Article 226 is undoubtedly wide, particularly where personal liberty is concerned; nevertheless, such jurisdiction cannot be exercised merely on the basis of allegations unsupported by cogent material. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 suffers from any error of law or that the findings recorded therein are contrary to the material available on record. 37. Consequently, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur), District Surguja (C.G.). The petitioner has failed to establish any violation of his fundamental or human rights so as to justify grant of compensation or any other relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 38. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan