Chhattisgarh HC Orders State To Pay ₹3 Lakh Compensation To Mother-Daughter Duo For 'Illegal' Arrest, 30-Hour Detention

A bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal passed this order on a plea moved by one Anju Lal (Mother/a retired school teacher) and one Deeksha Lal (daughter).

The case in brief

The petitioners argued that they are neighbours with the private respondent (one K.K. Jagade) and share a common road. The private respondent allegedly encroached upon half of this road, causing grievances to the petitioners.

In response, the petitioners made various complaints and representations to revenue authorities. However, it yielded no results. Finally, on September 16, 2023, at approximately 12:30 p.m., police officers, allegedly being hand in gloves with the private respondent, arrested the petitioners from their place of residence and took them to the Police Station.

They were put under illegal detention in a separate room, without informing the reason for arrest; under which offence and the right to approach legal aid or to inform their relatives about the arrest.

The Police Officers took them before the Magistrate around 5:00 p.m. and directed the petitioners to wait for one hour. Afterwards, they were sent to Central Jail Bilaspur.

It was the further case of the petitioners that despite their willingness to furnish a bail bond if necessary, the police officers unlawfully refused to acknowledge this and instead placed them in jail.

This action not only violated the petitioners' personal liberty and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India but also subjected them to police atrocities, their counsel argued.

Further, on the following day, September 17, 2023, around 6:00 p.m., the petitioners were released from illegal detention without being provided with their rights to a medical checkup, legal aid, information about the reason for arrest, or information about bail.

Seeking compensation for the illegal arrest as well as 30 hours of illegal detention, the petitioners contended before the HC that the police authorities played with the liberty of the petitioners and caused trauma, pain and humiliation to the petitioners and her family.

On the other hand, the counsel for the state submitted before the division bench that the Police staff, including female officers, intervened at the scene to resolve the dispute between the parties (petitioners and private respondent).

During their intervention, the petitioners verbally abused the complainant with vulgar language and also behaved rudely with the police personnel. Due to the escalating unpleasant situation, the petitioners were arrested under Section 151 of the CrPC and taken to the police station at 3:30 pm on September 16, 2023.

Thereafter, they were brought before the City Magistrate, wherein proceedings were initiated under Section 116(3) of CrPC. To prevent a breach of peace or commission of any offence, the Magistrate directed the petitioners to execute a bond of Rs.25,000 each, along with the same amount in securities.

However, since the petitioners failed to execute the specified bond before the Magistrate, they were sent to jail as per the Magistrate's order. Subsequently, on the following day, when the petitioners furnished the bond and securities, they were released.

High Court's observations

Taking note of the facts of the case, the Court, at the outset, observed that the Investigating Officers can under no circumstances flout the law with brazen proclivity. The Court also emphasised that constitutional Courts, taking note of suffering and humiliation, are entitled to grant compensation.

“Deviation from the prescribed norms and procedure with regard to arrest and detention which violates his personal liberty granted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, shall entitle the aggrieved person for appropriate compensation,” the Court remarked.

Further, the Court noted that a person could not be arrested on a mere suspicion against whom the commission of the cognizable or non-bailable offence is not made out and that such person cannot be remanded to judicial custody.

Further, taking note of the mandate of sub-section (1) of Section 107 of the CrPC, the Court observed that whenever the Executive Magistrate receives information under sub-section (1) about such a person, who is suspected of breaching the peace of the public, disturbing public tranquillity, causing danger to public harmony, or committing any wrongful act, it has to be showcased as to why he/she shall not be ordered to execute a bond.

However, in the instant case, the Court noted that the respondents/state had not followed such a mandate.

“The above facts clearly reveal that the right of life and liberty of the petitioners enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to get appropriate compensation,”

Accordingly, the Court deemed it fit to award compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to petitioner No. 1, who is a retired teacher and Rs. 2,00,000/- to petitioner No. 2, noting that she is an unmarried girl and aspiring Engineer with qualifications in B.E. (Civil), MSW and B.Ed. and preparing for competitive exams.

The Court has directed the State Government to contact the petitioners within 30 days of receiving a certified copy of the order.

Case title – Anju Lal and another vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Chh) 12

Click Here ToRead/Download Order