Custodial Abuse Over Trivial Cinema Hall Dispute Unacceptable: Chhattisgarh High Court Directs DGP to Examine SHO’s Conduct
Reiterated compliance with DK Basu, Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil guidelines
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that custodial abuse, illegal detention and public humiliation by the Police are wholly unacceptable, particularly in cases arising out of trivial public disputes. Accordingly, directed the Director General of Police to examine the conduct of the concerned Station House Officer, later to sensitise and counsel him, and take appropriate corrective or disciplinary action, if warranted.
While issuing the directions, the Court reiterated the mandatory nature of the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416, Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51, holding that unnecessary arrests and custodial excesses violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India and undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal observed, “It is manifest from the materials placed on record that there are procedural lapses and actions on the part of the police authorities which warrant serious concern. The conduct complained of alleging unlawful arrest, failure to observe statutory and judicial safeguards, inordinate delay in medical examination, and alleged humiliation of the petitioners, are matters which strike at the very core of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee the fundamental right to life, liberty, and dignity of every citizen. The allegations, if established, demonstrate a disregard for the rule of law and the constitutional safeguards enshrined for the protection of individuals against excesses in police action”.
The division bench further observed, “…it is equally apparent from the record, including the video footage, medical reports, and judicial observations, that certain aspects of the incident could have been handled with greater care, diligence, and adherence to procedural safeguards. While the Court does not find it appropriate to enter into a detailed adjudication on disputed facts at this stage, the gravity of the allegations and the sensitive nature of the case underscore the need for the police authorities to act strictly in accordance with law and established procedures in the future”.
Advocate Awadh Tripathi appeared for the petitioners and Vivek Sharma, Advocate General, assisted by Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General appeared for the respondents.
The present writ petition arose from an incident dated 22-10-2025, when the petitioners and their family members were allegedly subjected to high-handed police action following a minor verbal exchange inside a cinema hall in Bhilai over seating arrangements.
The petitioners contended that despite the incident being trivial and non-violent, the police registered multiple FIRs for offences like Sections 74, 191, 126, 296, 351(3), 115(2), 121, 221 and 132 under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, illegally detained them, and subjected them to physical and mental torture.
It was alleged that the petitioners were handcuffed, paraded in public, forced to shout humiliating slogans, and denied prompt medical examination, even after being produced before a Judicial Magistrate who had directed medical treatment and sought explanations regarding injuries.
The High Court noted that the petitioners had no criminal antecedents and that the incident did not justify arrest or custodial treatment of such nature. The Bench took serious note of allegations that the petitioners were paraded publicly and that videos of the incident were circulated in the media, causing irreparable harm to their dignity and reputation.
Therefore, the petition stood disposed, while the bench reiterated that acts of custodial violence and abuse, which typically occur behind closed doors, cannot be condoned in a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law.
Cause Title: Sujeet Sao & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:3546-DB]
Appearances:
Petitioners: Awadh Tripathi, Advocate
Respondents: Vivek Sharma, Advocate General, assisted by Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General