CHUDAMANI SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Court: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case type: WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL OTHER MATTER
Decided on: 09-04-2026

<div> 1 2026:CGHC:16335-DB 2026:CGHC:16335-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 463 of 2024 Chudamani Sahu S/o Ramsay Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Raypura Thana Baradwar District - Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Homer Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur - Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner Cum Detaining Officer Bilaspur Division District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) Sakti District - Sakti (C.G.) 4 - Station House Officer Police Station Baradwar District - Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Nikhil Wadhwani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr.Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 9.4.2026 1. Heard Mr.Nikhil Wadhwani, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State. 2 2026:CGHC:16335-DB 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with following reliefs:- “1) That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the impugned order dated 18.11.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent no.2 and impugned Istagasa dated 11.09.2024 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent no.4, in the interest of justice. 2) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favor of the petitioner.” 3. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner, an auto driver, was prosecuted under the NDPS Act in 2020 and was convicted vide judgment dated 26.07.2021. He thereafter filed an appeal before this Court, registered as CRA No. 803/2021, and was granted suspension of sentence and bail vide order dated 22.08.2022 (Annexure P/3). Since his release in August 2022, the petitioner has been earning his livelihood by driving an auto and has not been involved in any criminal activity. No complaint or criminal case has been registered against him during this period. 4 . On 20.09.2024, the petitioner received a show cause notice under Section 10 of the Prevention of Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as “PITNDPS Act”), along with a letter from the SDOP, Sakti, and the SHO, Police Station Baradwaj (Annexure P/2). The notice primarily refers to his earlier case, in which he is presently on bail. The istagasa dated 3 2026:CGHC:16335-DB 11.09.2024, forming the basis of the notice, is vague and unsupported by any specific complaint or material, merely alleging that the petitioner is a habitual offender. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice (Annexure P/4). His statement was recorded on 25.10.2024, wherein he stated that he is maintaining his family through lawful means and is not involved in any illegal activities (Annexure P/5). It is submitted that the authorities neither recorded any statement of the SHO in the presence of the petitioner nor provided any opportunity for cross-examination or hearing. The petitioner also filed written arguments challenging the vague and mala fide nature of the istagasa and seeking quashing of the proceedings (Annexure P/6). However, vide impugned order dated 18.11.2024, respondent No. 2, without any supporting material, held the petitioner to be a habitual offender and directed his detention for three months in District Jail, Sakti, under Section 10 of the Act (Annexure P/1). Hence, this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order dated 18.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) is bad, illegal, arbitrary and there is violation of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India as well as principles of natural justice, hence it is liable to be quashed/set-aside. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was convicted under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1988 (hereinafter called as “PITNDPS Act”) by the trial Court vide judgment dated 26.07.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court and his application for 4 2026:CGHC:16335-DB suspension of sentence was allowed, wherein, he had been granted bail. It is stated that the present proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and the complaint has been filed and an order has been passed in view of Section 10 of the PITNDPS Act. It is stated that without there being any fresh material against the petitioner, as it appears from istagasa dated 11.09.2024, the impugned order has been passed against the petitioner whereby he has been directed to be taken into custody for a period of three months. As such, the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 deserves to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel would support the impugned order and oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 6 . A worst case of violation of human rights took place during arrest made by the Police, the Hon'ble Apex Court in D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal , reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416 observed as under: “20. In Joginder Kamar vs. State of U.P., [(1994) 4 SCC 260: 1994 SCC (Cri) 1172] considered the dynamics of misuse of police power of arrest and opined: 5 2026:CGHC:16335-DB "No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another….. No arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person's complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter." 21. A realistic approach should be made in this direction. The law of arrest is one of balancing individual rights, liberties and privileges on the one hand, and individual duties, obligations and responsibilities on the other; of weighing and balancing the rights, liberties and privileges of the single individual and those of individuals collectively; of simply deciding what is wanted and where to put the weight and the emphasis; of deciding which comes first – the criminal or society, the law violator or the law abider……… ” 7 . The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of D.K. Basu (supra), after referring to the authorities in Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. , reported in (1994) 4 SCC 260 . Nilabati Behera (Smt.) Alias Lalita Behera Vs. State of Orissa & Others , reported in (1993) 2 SCC 746 and State of M.P. vs. Shyamsunder Trivedi , reported in (1995) 4 SCC 262, laid down certain guidelines to be followed in cases of arrest and 6 2026:CGHC:16335-DB detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures. The said guidelines reads as follows: “(1) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations. The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register. (2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may either be a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest. (3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the articular place, unless the attesting witness of the meme of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee. (4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the 7 2026:CGHC:16335-DB police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town through the Legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest. (5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained. (6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest and the names and particulars of the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is. (7) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any, present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The “Inspection Memo” must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee. (8) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every 18 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the State or Union Territory concerned. Director, Health Services should 8 2026:CGHC:16335-DB prepare such a panel for all tehsils and districts as well. (9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred above, should be sent to the Illaqa Magistrate for his record. (10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation. (11) A police control room should be provided at all district and State headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous noticeboard. " 8 . From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that respondent No.2/Commissioner cum Detaining Officer has observed that on 24.01.2020, in the year 2020, on the basis of informer’s information, Inspector Motilal Sharma of Baradwara Police Station conducted a raid and seized 20.05 kg of illegal narcotic substance Ganja and a motorcycle from the possession of the petitioner and after taking the action, the petitioner was arrested and was imprisoned under Crime No.29/20 under Section 20B of the PITNDPS Act. Respondent No.2 further observed that even after taking legal action against the petitioner, there has been no change in his behaviour and information is continuously being received against the petitioner for sailing illegal drugs in small/large quantities again in the police station area Baradwar 9 2026:CGHC:16335-DB and boarder areas Saragaon, Sakti and Nagrada, but the petitioner is not being caught by the police after gathering information due to which there is lot of public anger in the area, it is clear from the act of the petitioner that the petitioner is a habitual criminal of illegal collection and sale of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, it seems appropriate to take legal action against him. Respondent No.2 also observed that after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed before the Court, in which the accused / petitioner is presently on bail. The release of the petitioner on bail by the Court appears to have increased his confidence and emboldened him. From the above facts, it is evident that the petitioner is a habitual offender engaged in the illegal trafficking of cannabis (ganja). His presence in society is likely to have an adverse impact, and the possibility of a negative influence on society cannot be ruled out and accordingly, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 10 of the said Act, he ordered that the petitioner be detained in District Jail, Sakti for a period of three months. 9 . Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the impugned action of respondent No. 2 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 10 . It is evident that the petitioner has been branded as a habitual offender merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises, without there being any cogent or substantive material to support such a conclusion. Except for one criminal appeal bearing No. 803/2021, which is stated to 10 2026:CGHC:16335-DB be pending adjudication before the competent Court, no other criminal case or complaint is shown to be pending against the petitioner. Further, the record reveals that the proceedings have been initiated on the basis of a vague istagasa , which is not supported by any written complaint, nor by any reliable oral or documentary evidence. The show-cause notice issued thereafter and the consequent order of detention for a period of three months suffer from complete lack of application of mind and are not founded on any legally admissible material. 11 . In the absence of credible evidence, such an order, which curtails the personal liberty of the petitioner, cannot be permitted to stand. The action of the respondents, therefore, is arbitrary and amounts to a clear abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 12 . For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 2 and the impugned Istagasa dated 11.09.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.4 are hereby quashed/set aside. No order as to costs. </div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Sd/- Sd/-</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div> (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu </div>