Bilaspur: Sending a clear and firm message on the sanctity of judicial institutions, the Chhattisgarh High Court has rejected anticipatory bail pleas filed by two men accused of participating in a mob that allegedly disrupted court proceedings, manhandled police personnel, and obstructed them from performing official duties within court premises.
Dismissing the applications of Sanjeet Kumar Burman and Amrit Das Dahariya, Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, in an order passed on January 6, observed that no individual or group can be allowed to take the law into their own hands under the pretext of protest or demonstration. The court underlined that any act of intimidation, obstruction, or violence, particularly against public servants discharging statutory duties, strikes at the very foundation of the administration of justice.
The case stems from an incident dated November 15, 2025, when a mob allegedly gathered unlawfully within the court premises at Bilaspur. The gathering took place when a kathawachak, Ashutosh Chaitanya, who had been arrested in a separate case, was being produced before a trial court. According to the prosecution, members of the mob entered the courtroom, raised slogans, threatened the accused, and created chaos. When police personnel intervened to control the situation, they were allegedly manhandled and prevented from discharging their official duties. An FIR was later registered at Civil Lines Police Station under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The applicants claimed that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated, arguing that the FIR was a counter-blast lodged under political pressure. They also relied on video footage circulated by media outlets to assert that they were not involved in the incident. However, the court found the allegations serious and supported by material available on record, including the case diary.
Significantly, the court took note of the criminal antecedents of both applicants. While one had a prior criminal case registered against him, the other was found to be facing multiple cases across different police stations. The court held that such past conduct disentitled them from the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.
The applicants also sought parity with a co-accused who had been granted anticipatory bail. Rejecting this argument, the court noted that the co-accused had no criminal antecedents and had been granted relief on specific grounds, including academic examinations. The present applicants, the court said, stood on a different footing due to their antecedents and the distinct role attributed to them in the incident.
Emphasising that court premises are neutral, dignified, and inviolable spaces meant exclusively for the administration of justice, the High Court warned that granting anticipatory bail in cases involving disruption of judicial proceedings would send a wrong signal to society and erode public confidence in the justice delivery system. Balancing individual liberty against societal interest, the court concluded that the seriousness of the allegations and the applicants’ past conduct ruled out any relief, and accordingly dismissed both applications.
Case Reference : MCRCA No. 1996 of 2025, Sanjeet Kumar Burman S/o Teekaram Burman, Bilaspur vs State of Chhattisgarh, along with MCRCA No. 1999 of 2025, Amrit Das Dahariya S/o Taran Das Dahariya, Bilaspur vs State of Chhattisgarh; counsel for the applicants was Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate, while Mr. Bharat Gulabani, Panel Lawyer, appeared for the State.
