Chhattisgarh High Court raises concern over police conduct in Bhilai arrest case, directs DGP to examine SHO’s actions and enforce arrest safeguards

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 63 | 2026:CGHC:3546-DB

Bilaspur, January 21, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh High Court has expressed serious concern over the manner in which police officials in Durg district handled the arrest and custody of five men following a minor dispute at a cinema hall, warning that even unintentional deviations from constitutional safeguards can erode public confidence in the rule of law.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal disposed of a criminal writ petition alleging illegal arrest, custodial torture, handcuffing and public humiliation by police personnel of Smriti Nagar police chowki in Bhilai. While the Court stopped short of awarding compensation or ordering criminal action at this stage, it directed the Director General of Police to examine the conduct of the station house officer concerned and to take corrective or disciplinary measures if warranted.

The case arose from an incident on 22 October 2025 at PVR Cinemas in Surya Mall, Bhilai, where a minor verbal exchange occurred between two families over seating issues. According to the petitioners, the situation was trivial and non-violent, but police intervention led to the registration of multiple FIRs under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, followed by their arrest and overnight detention.

The petitioners alleged that the arrests were made in violation of Supreme Court guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar, Satender Kumar Antil and D.K. Basu, despite the offences being punishable with less than five years’ imprisonment. They further claimed that they were subjected to physical and mental torture, illegally handcuffed, paraded in public view, and forced to shout humiliating slogans, even after a Judicial Magistrate ordered medical examination and safeguards.

The State government strongly denied the allegations, contending that the petitioners had misbehaved with the complainant and assaulted police personnel, causing injuries. The Director General of Police, in a personal affidavit, asserted that all actions were lawful, supported by CCTV footage and medical reports, and that the alleged public parading occurred only because a police vehicle had developed a mechanical fault. The affidavit also pointed to alleged criminal antecedents of some of the petitioners and stated that a show-cause notice had already been issued to the station house officer.

After examining the material on record, including affidavits, medical reports and judicial observations from lower courts, the High Court noted that the allegations raised serious issues touching upon Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, which protect life, liberty and dignity. The Bench observed that there appeared to be procedural lapses in the manner the police handled arrest, medical examination and post-remand custody, even though disputed facts could not be conclusively adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.

In its order, the Court stressed that any form of custodial abuse or humiliation is wholly unacceptable, particularly in cases arising from trivial or minor public disputes. It directed the Director General of Police to sensitise officers across the State about mandatory safeguards relating to arrest and detention, and to ensure strict compliance with Supreme Court guidelines. The Court also recorded its strong disapproval of the “casual and hasty approach” attributed to the station house officer, noting that such conduct, even if unintended, has the potential to undermine constitutional governance.

With these observations, the writ petition was disposed of without costs. The Court made it clear that internal departmental review and corrective measures must be meaningfully pursued to prevent recurrence of similar incidents and to uphold public trust in policing.

Case Reference : WPCR No. 11 of 2026, Sujeet Sao and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others; counsel for the petitioners: Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate; counsel for the State/respondents: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General.