Chattisgarh High Court
Chaitanya Baghel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 January, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
2025:CGHC:320-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 3019 of 2024
Chaitanya Baghel S/o Shri Bhupesh Baghel, Aged About 37 Years R/o Mansarovar
Colony, Bhilai-3, District-Durg (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through- Station House Officer, Police Station-Old
Bhilai, District-Durg (C.G.) ...Respondent
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Shri Kapil Sibbal, Sr Advocate with Shri
Abhishek Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Shri Shashank Thakur, Dy AG
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
03.01.2025
Heard Shri Kapil Sibbal, learned Senior Advocate through video
conferencing, along with Shri Abhishek Pandey, learned counsel for the
petitioner. Also heard Shri Shashank Thakur, learned Dy AG, appearing
for the respondent/State.
1. An amendment application has been moved in the present petition
for amending the prayer, and the same has been allowed by this Court on
26.11.2024.
Crmp 3019 of 2024
2. Thus the petitioner has filed the present petition with the following
prayers:-
"1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash notices
dated 15.10.2024 and 23.10.2024 issued u/s 94 of BNSS in
relation to FIR bearing No.278/2024 dated 19.07.2024 registered
at P.S. Old Bhilai, District- Durg u/s 109, 296, 3(5), 351(3) BNS;
2) That any other relief(s) which the Hon'ble Court deems fit &
proper may kindly be pleased to granted in favour of the
petitioners."
3. Present petition is being filed by the petitioner seeking inter alia
quashing of impugned FIR bearing No.278 of 2024 dated 19.07.2024
registered at PS-Old Bhilai, District- Durg under Sections 109, 296, 3(50,
351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (hereafter, "BNS"), and all
consequential proceedings. Upon registration of said FIR, some accused
persons were arrested by the Police and were interrogated. In the FIR,
petitioner has not been named. On different dates, Police issued notices
to the petitioner in the process of interrogation. On 15.10.2024, and on
23.10.2024, notices were issued to the petitioner under Section 94 of the
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS 2023"), by the
PS-Old Bhilai, asking GOOGLE ID and Password of his phone which
was seized by the Police.
4. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that the conduct
of the respondent/State is not proper or in accordance with law, as the
investigation is being done with ulterior motive. Petitioner herein is not
Crmp 3019 of 2024
even named in the FIR, and there is no evidence to connect him with the
alleged incident in any manner. The respondent/State only wants to do a
google tech out process on the phone of the petitioner, by which another
unfair and illegal proceeding may be carried out against him. It seems
that the respondent/State is conducting a fishing and roving investigation
with only motive to rope in the petitioner anyhow, under political pressure.
Petitioner has already handed over his both phones to the respondent in
open and working state, and there is no need for him to provide
GOOGLE ID and Password, as the same has no connection with the
investigation of the case. Moreover, it infringes his right to privacy.
5. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner relied upon the following
judgments in support of his submissions:
State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 sppl(1) SCC 335; Neelam
Mahajan Singh Vs Commissioner of Police, 1993 SCC Online Del
449; and Arvind Kejriwal Vs Central Bureau of Investigation, 2024
INSC 687
6. Learned counsel for State fairly states that the notices which were
issued to the petitioner for providing his GOOGLE ID and Password of
the mobiles which has been seized by the Police have neither made the
petitioner any accused in the case, nor they were compelling him to give
the GOOGLE ID and Password. He further informed to the Court that
petitioner is cooperating with the investigation, as he visited the
Investigating Officer twice, in pursuance of the notices issued to him. He
Crmp 3019 of 2024
also submits that information as asked in the notice is to be provided, or
not, is entirely on petitioner's discretion.
7. Considering the fact that the statement which has been made by
the learned State counsel, who has shown from the impugned notice that
an option has been given to the petitioner that it is his choice to give the
GOOGLE ID and Password, or not, and the respondent/State is not
compelling him to do so. Hence, the Investigating agency may take
recourse to other process of investigation through other mode available
under the law to collect the evidence in the case.
8. In view of above, present petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
padma
