ROHIT DAS vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1


2026:CGHC:21344-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 261 of 2026
Rohit Das S/o Late Shri Ajay Das Aged About 23 Years R/o Dharampura
No. 1, Near Greencity P.S. Kotwali Jagdalpur, Permanent R/o F/69 Atal
Awas 02, Dharampura, Near Polytechnic College Jagdalpur, P.S.
Kotwali Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
2 - The Commissioner Cum Detaining Authority Under The Prevention
Of Illicit Traffic In Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances 1988,
Jagdalpur Division, Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Superintendent Of Police District Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar,
Chhattisgarh.
4 - Station House Officer Police Station Bodhghat, Distt. Bastar,
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Syed Ishhadil Ali, Advocate
For Respondents
/State
: Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Dy. Advocate General
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
. 05 07 .202 6
ROHIT
KUMAR
CHANDRA
1. Heard Mr. Syed Ishhadil Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner as
Digitally signed
by ROHIT
KUMAR
CHANDRA
well as Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, learned Deputy Advocate
General, appearing for the State/respondents.

2
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :
“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the
petitioner for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order
dated 23.04.2026 passed by the learned
Commissioner- Cum Detaining Authority Under The
Prevention Of Illicit Traffic In Narcotic Drugs And
Psychotropic Substances (C.G.) in Case 1988,
Jagdalpur Division, Bastar No.202505950100011/B-
121/2024-25, Jagdalpur, District-Bastar (C.G)
(Superintendent of police VS Rohit Das)
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
pass an order stay the arresting of the petitioner in
compliance of order impugned dated 23-04-2026
10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
pass an order whereby the police authorities / State
may kindly be directed to pay the petitioner a sum of
Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.
10.5 That, any other writs and direction which this
Hon'ble Court deems fit and just in the facts and
circumstances of the case be granted to the petitioner.
10.6 That the cost of the petition may kindly be
awarded in favour of the petitioner."
3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that in the year 2021, the
petitioner has been prosecuted for an offence punishable under
section 20b (ii) B Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1881 (for short, 'NDPS Act') under Crime No.161/2021

3
registered at P.S. Bhodhghat District- Bastar (C.G.) and after trial,
he has been convicted for 33 days and fine of rupees 5000/- vide
order dated 22.12.2022 passed by Special Judge NDPS Act
Bastar Place Jagdalpur (C.G.). Thereafter, the petitioner has been
prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 20b (ii) (C) of
the NDPS Act under Crime No. 55/2022 registered at P.S.
Darbha, District- Bastar (C.G.) and after trial, he has been
convicted for 7 months and fined for rupees 4000/- vide order
dated 02.03.2023 passed by Special Judge NDPS Act Bastar
Place Jagdalpur (C.G.), which he had already served out and
after that till date, no any criminal case have been registered
against the petitioner in any Police Station.
4. On 05.05.2025, the respondent No.4 had moved an application
before the respondent No.3 for taking action against the petitioner
under The Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances, 1988 hereinafter referred as the Act,
1988 on the ground that the petitioner was earlier involved in the
offences which is punishable under 20(B) of NDPS Act under
Crime No. 161/2021 registered before P.S. Darbha Dist. Bastar
(C.G.) and also involved under section 20(B) of NDPS Act under
Crime No. 55/2022 P.S. bhodhghat Dist. Bastar(C.G.) and he is
still involved in those activities. Subsequently on the same day
dated 05.05.2025, the respondent no.3 forwarded the letter before
respondent No.2 and later on, the respondent No.2 initiated the
Istagasa proceeding under Section 3(1) and Section 10 of the Act,

4
1988 which was registered as Istagasa Appeal No.
202505950100011/B-121/2024-25, Jagdalpur, District-Bastar
(C.G) and issued the notice to the petitioner. The petitioner
accepted the notice and continuously appeared before the
learned Court for attending and co-operating in the proceeding
which is clear from the order sheets of the proceedings.
5. The petitioner filed his reply before the learned Court on
24.02.2026 wherein he has clearly not suppressed any of the
charges levelled against him for the offence punishable under
section 20(B) of NDPS Act and he further stated that he is not
involved in any activity whether NDPS or any other criminal
activity which creates negative impression upon the society. But,
the respondent No.2 without considering the submissions made
by the petitioner passed the impugned order on 23.04.2026 and
direct the respondent No.4 to detain the petitioner in confinement
for a period of three months. Hence, this petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent
authorities without finding any material against the petitioner, only
on the basis of surmises and conjuncture presumed that he is a
habitual offender, though except one case which is already
decided and the petitioner has been acquitted and except that no
other criminal case or any kind of criminal complaint against the
petitioner is pending before any Court of law or before any Police
Station, thus it is clear that the petitioner is not involved in any
kind of offences under the Act, 1988, therefore, the entire

5
proceeding under Case No. 202505950100011/B-121/2024-25
before the learned Commissioner-cum-Detaining Authority,
Jagdalpur Division, Bastar is not only bad, illegal, arbitrary but
there is violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
He further submitted that the order impugned is passed only on
the basis of Istagasa prepared by Superintendent of Police which
is based on false and fabricated statement by him that the
petitioner still involved in selling of contraband article i.e. Ganja
and report has been lodged by the Station House Officer but no
proceeding or arrest or any kind of seizure was made by the
Station House Officer, thus it is clear that only on the basis of
earlier offence, the petitioner has been implicated, therefore, the
order impugned is liable to be set-aside.
7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the
submissions on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner
and supported the impugned order.
8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the documents annexed with the writ petition.
9. 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:

6
"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………”
10. 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 ; the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down
certain guidelines to be followed in cases of arrest and detention
till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive
measures. The said guidelines reads as follows:

7
"(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 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

8
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 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

9
causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the
arrest and at the police control room it should be
displayed on a conspicuous noticeboard."
11. Applying the aforesaid principles in the case at hand, it is reflected
that earlier, the petitioner has been prosecuted for an offence
punishable under section 20b (ii) B of the NDPS Act under Crime
No.161/2021 registered at P.S. Bhodhghat District- Bastar (C.G.)
and after trial, he has been convicted for 33 days and fine of
rupees 5000/- vide order dated 22.12.2022 passed by Special
Judge NDPS Act Bastar Place Jagdalpur (C.G.). Thereafter, the
petitioner has been prosecuted for an offence punishable under
Section 20b (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act under Crime No. 55/2022
registered at P.S. Darbha, District- Bastar (C.G.) and after trial, he
has been convicted for 7 months and fined for rupees 4000/- vide
order dated 02.03.2023 passed by Special Judge NDPS Act
Bastar Place Jagdalpur (C.G.) and after that till date, no any
criminal case have been registered against the petitioner in any
Police Station. It is further reflected that though a show cause
notice has been issued to the petitioner, to which he has filed his
reply, but without considering the same and observing that the
same is found to be unsatisfactory, respondent No.2 vide order
dated 23.04.2026, directed to detain the petitioner for a period of
three months.
12. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly the fact that petitioner has already served out the
sentences imposed upon him by the trial Courts for the very same

10
offence under the provisions of NDPS Act and deposited the fine
amounts on two occasions, he cannot be detained in the police
custody for a period of three months as ordered by respondent
No.2, we deem it appropriate to exercise our discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and allow
the petition filed by the petitioner.
13. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.04.2026
(Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.2 is hereby set-
aside. The petitioner be released forthwith, if not required in any
other case. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled for any
compensation.
14. In the result, the present writ petition is allowed to the extent
indicated hereinabove.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Chandra