Preventive Arrest Cannot Become Punitive: Chhattisgarh High Court Awards ₹1 Lakh Compensation for Illegal Detention

The bench even expressed serious concern over the manner in which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate mechanically remanded the petitioner to judicial custody, despite the absence of any registered offence, material on record, or justification warranting custody. Noting that a Magistrate is required to act as a “judicial sentinel”, the Bench held that remand powers under Section 187 of the BNSS cannot be exercised as a routine or mechanical formality.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, thus, while quashing the criminal proceedings, observed, “…we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner, along with his parents has suffered severe mental, emotional, and financial hardship due to illegal detention. The humiliation and harassment occurring in custody, irrespective of its precise medical cause, is sufficient to engage the State’s constitutional obligation under Article 21 to compensate the victim and for the violation of their right to a dignified life”.

While awarding compensation in the nature of "exemplary damages" for breach of public law duty, it further observed, “…and it has been consistently held that where the State, through its officers, is found responsible for violation of the fundamental right of a person in its custody, the award of compensation must serve not only as restitution but also as a deterrent against recurrence of such inhuman acts. The object of awarding compensation in such cases is twofold i.e. first, to provide some solace to the victim for the humility suffered, and second, to remind the State that it bears a constitutional and moral responsibility to ensure that no individual in its custody is subjected to torture, cruelty, or indignity”.

Advocate Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede appeared for the petitioner and Vivek Sharma, Advocate General and Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General appeared for the respondent.

In the present matter, the petitioner, a hotelier, was taken away by the police from his hotel during business hours and detained without registration of any FIR or communication of the grounds of arrest.

The Court noted that no FIR was registered in the matter against the petitioner at any stage, and his arrest was effected merely on an alleged suspicion of disturbance, by invoking Section 170 of the BNSS, which is purely preventive in nature.

The Bench said that even assuming the State’s version to be correct, a momentary altercation with police personnel could not justify arrest and incarceration, particularly when less intrusive measures were available under law. The drastic step of arrest and subsequent judicial remand, the Court observed, was grossly disproportionate.

Crucially, the Court found that the petitioner was never informed of the grounds of arrest, either orally or in writing. The arrest memo itself recorded the petitioner’s endorsement stating, “I don’t know the matter”, reinforcing the allegation that he was kept completely uninformed.

Relying on Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356, the Court reiterated that non-supply of grounds of arrest renders the arrest and remand illegal, entitling the arrestee to be set at liberty.

The High Court also expressed serious concern over the manner in which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate mechanically remanded the petitioner to judicial custody, despite the absence of any registered offence or material justifying custody.

Taking note of the allegations, the Court allowed the writ petition and held that even mental and psychological trauma suffered during illegal detention engages the State’s constitutional obligation to compensate the victim.

Cause Title: Akash Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home [Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:3546-DB]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate

Respondent: Vivek Sharma, Advocate General, Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General