Chhattisgarh High Court fines state Rs 25,000 for man’s ‘illegal’ arrest, says dignity matters

The case arose after Beg alleged that he had been called to Gharghoda police station following a complaint lodged by one Feroz Kashyap. According to the petition, police officials allegedly pressured him to compromise with the complainant. When he refused, he was accused of creating a nuisance inside the police station, and an Istgasha was registered against him under Sections 170 (preventive arrest to avert the commission of a cognisable offence), 126 (proceedings for requiring security to maintain peace) and 135(3) (interim detention pending execution of the required bond) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

An Istgasha is a preventive police report submitted to an executive magistrate seeking action to prevent a likely breach of peace or disturbance of public order, not an FIR alleging a criminal offence.

Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Ravindra Kumar Agarwal held that a magistrate cannot remand an arrested person to custody as a matter of routine. (Image enhanced using AI)

Why petitioner approached high court

Beg contended that after being produced before the executive magistrate on October 25, 2025, he was directed to be released upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs 1 lakh. However, instead of releasing him, the authorities sent the bail bond for verification by the revenue inspector and remanded him to jail.

Since the presiding officer was on leave on October 28, the matter was taken up only on October 29, when he was finally released. He argued that other similarly placed persons had been released by another magistrate during the same period.

The petitioner argued that no cognisable offence had ever been registered against him and that he had been called to the police station without any written notice. He maintained that his arrest and continued detention violated his fundamental rights under Article 21 and sought compensation for the humiliation and mental harassment suffered during his incarceration.

The state opposed the petition, arguing that Beg had been arrested and produced before the executive magistrate, who had passed a judicial order remanding him to custody. It contended that the petitioner’s incarceration was therefore judicial custody and could not be characterised as illegal detention.

The state also informed the court that the petitioner had eight criminal antecedents, though Beg’s counsel submitted that they were all before 2020 and related to trivial offences.

Life, liberty, dignity

• The high court held that the police had failed to place any material showing that Beg had committed a cognisable offence.
• Referring to Section 35 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 41 of the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, the bench observed that the provision confers preventive powers on the police and is not a penal provision.
• It reiterated that Article 21 guarantees not only life and liberty but also protection from humiliation caused by unnecessary or malicious arrests.
• “It is a well-settled principle of law that life and liberty of a citizen guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes life with dignity and liberty with dignity. Liberty must mean freedom from humiliation and unnecessary/false/mischievous arrest,” the court observed.
• The bench further held that a magistrate cannot remand an arrested person to custody as a matter of routine.
• Before authorising detention, the magistrate must satisfy himself that a non-bailable offence appears to have been committed, that an investigation has commenced and that custody is genuinely necessary, said the court.
• The duty becomes even more stringent where a person has been arrested merely on suspicion, the court said, noting that such powers are susceptible to abuse, it added.

Concluding that Beg’s arrest and judicial custody had infringed his constitutional right to life and personal liberty, the court held that he was entitled to public law compensation. Accordingly, the court directed the Chhattisgarh government to pay Rs 25,000 to the petitioner within 30 days.