May 02, 2001 : In a strongly worded order, Justice R.S. Garg of the Chhattisgarh High Court exposed serious misconduct by two police officers from Bemetara, directing that criminal proceedings be initiated against them for unlawful detention, fabrication of records, and misuse of authority.
The case stems from an incident in November 2000, when four young men, Prakash, Dheeraj, Avinash, and Neeraj Tiwari, were allegedly taken into custody by the police on November 13 but officially shown as arrested the following day. The court noted glaring inconsistencies in the arrest memos and case diary, including overwriting of arrest times and forged entries.
According to the order, Inspector Satish Bajpai and S.D.O. (Police) Gurubachan Singh kept the accused in lock-up without preparing arrest Panchnamas or informing their families, as required by law. Justice Garg pointed out that “once the movements of a person are restricted and he is put in lock-up, he is deemed to be arrested,” rejecting the officers’ claim that the individuals were merely “in custody but not arrested.”
The High Court was also disturbed by the fact that the accused were produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bemetara whose son happened to be the complainant rather than before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Durg, the appropriate authority. Justice Garg described this decision as “highly questionable” and lacking any legal justification.
The court observed that one of the accused was a minor, yet was not produced before the Juvenile Court as mandated by law. Justice Garg condemned the officers’ conduct as “a pathetic and sorry state of affairs,” asserting that their actions amounted to “wrongful confinement without authority of law.”
The judgment went on to describe the officers’ attempts to alter records as “forgery writ large,” noting visible interpolations in the case diary and arrest memorandums. The court said such acts “cannot be forgiven,” especially when done by officers sworn to uphold the law.
Dr. N.K. Shukla, the Deputy Advocate General, acknowledged the gravity of the misconduct and suggested compensation to the victims. Accepting that part of the suggestion, Justice Garg ordered each officer to pay ₹20,000 in total — ₹5,000 per complainant — as immediate compensation, while clarifying that the victims retained the right to seek additional damages through civil proceedings.
The Superintendent of Police, Durg, was directed to register offences against the erring officers for wrongful confinement, beating, and forgery. If unable to conduct the probe, the SP must request the Inspector General of Police to take over the investigation and report progress to the court. The Director General of Police was also instructed to initiate departmental action, with the High Court cautioning that any failure to comply would invite contempt proceedings.
Calling for accountability within the force, Justice Garg reminded senior officers that the directions of the High Court and the Supreme Court regarding arrest procedures, protection of minors, and prohibition of third-degree methods are binding and must be respected.
“The present is not a case where the dead should be buried,” the court said, “but a case which needs a further probe and absolute autopsy into the actions of these two officers.”
With these observations, the petition was disposed of, and the court ordered the sealing of the case diaries to prevent further tampering.
Case Reference : Writ Petition No. 57 of 2000, Girija Tiwari vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.
