Chattisgarh High Court
Santosh Singh @ Jalandhar Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 March, 2025
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 961 of 2025
1 - Santosh Singh @ Jalandhar Singh S/o Late Dinanath Singh Aged
About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 24, Milan Chowk, Camp-2, P.S. Chhawni
Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs,
Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Director General Of Police Police Head Quarters, Raipur, District
Raipur, Chhattisgar
3 - Superintendent Of Police Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh
4 - Shri Satya Prakash Tiwari Posted As City Superintendent Of Police,
Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh
5 - Shri Amit Andani (Sub-Inspector) Posted As In-Charge Town Inspector,
Police Station Vaishali Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh
2
6 - Devnath Gupta S/o Ramkeval Gupta Aged About 43 Years R/o Lig Plot
No. 5, Block No. 2, Ward No. 10, Jawahar Nagar, Bhilai, P.S. Vaishali
Nagarh, District Durg, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
Order Sheet
12/03/2025 Heard Mr. B. P. Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Govt.
Advocate, appearing for the respondent/State.
At 10:30 a.m., learned counsel for the petitioner had
made a mention for taking up the matter considering the
urgency and the fact that the petitioner has been arrested
illegally by the police in the present case and the Courts are
closing today for Holi vacation, hence, we have allowed the
mention. Thus, the matter has been listed in the
supplementary cause list today as a fresh case by the
Registry of this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
earlier an FIR was registered against the petitioner bearing
Crime No. 61/2023 on 21.03.2023 lodged by one Smt.
Kshama Yadu for an incident which had taken place in
between 24.01.2020 to 21.03.2020 and the said FIR was
lodged against two persons namely Arvind Bhai and N.
Dhanraju for the offence under Section 420/34 of IPC, at
Police Station Vaishali Nagar, District Durg, a copy of which
has been annexed as Annexure P/2. It is stated that N.
Dhanraju has challenged the said FIR by filing CRMP No.
349/2025 before this Court and this Court on 29.01.2025 has
called upon the Director General of Police, State of
Chhattisgarh as well as Superintendent of Police, Durg,
Chhattisgarh to submit as to why the investigation of the said
crime number was not concluded and called for an
explanation from the Investigating Officer. A copy of the said
order has been annexed as Annexure P/3 to this petition.
In pursuance of the same, the Superintendent of
Police, Durg has filed his personal affidavit which was not
appreciated by the Court as the same was filed in a very
casual manner which is reflected by the order of this Court
dated 07.02.2025. Thereafter, on the said date, we called
upon the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh to file his
personal affidavit and the same was filed on 21.02.2025 and
this Court incorporated the affidavit of the Director General
of Police, Chhattisgarh and the action taken against the
various Investigating Officers who had kept the matter
pending as was reflected from the affidavit. Vide order dated
03.03.2025 passed in MCRC No. 284/2025, the said petition
was disposed of with a direction to conclude the
investigation under Section 193(3) of the BNSS within a
period of 6 weeks.
It is stated that when the petitioner went to the
concerned Police Station to furnish his bail bond in
pursuance of the anticipatory bail granted to him on
03.03.2025 in MCRCA No. 284 of 2025, at concerned Police
Station, he was arrested in the present case.
It is stated that Shri Amit Andani (Sub-Inspector)
posted as In-charge Town Inspector, Police Station Vaishali
Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh who is respondent No. 5
and has been impleaded as a party, has arrested the
present petitioner in the impugned FIR and sent him to jail. It
is further argued that when the applicant was produced
before the remand Magistrate the complainant/ respondent
No. 6 had appeared before the remand Magistrate and filed
an affidavit that he had not lodged any FIR against the
petitioner as it was lodged against 4 co-accused namely
Kartiknand Sharma, Harish Rathore, Arvind Bhai @
Purushottam and Rajendra Soni and from the affidavit, it
also transpires that the complainant had no grievance
against the petitioner. A copy of the affidavit of the
complainant/respondent No. 6 has been enclosed as
Annexure P/7).
It is further pointed that in the impugned FIR the
incident which is said to have taken place on 29.05.2017
and the impugned FIR was lodged on 04.03.2025 i.e. after
about 8 years of the incident which is subject matter of
challenge in the present petition.
Mr. Singh submitted that the arrest of the petitioner is
absolutely mala fide on the part of the respondent No.6 and
as the respondent No. 5 is the person against whom DGP
has imposed the punishment for not completing the
investigation in the FIR which was registered against the
applicant i.e. Crime No. 61/2023 he has illegally arrested the
applicant in the present case though he was not wanted in
the FIR nor named in the FIR and the complainant in the
case has also filed and affidavit that he had no grievance
against the petitioner.
Mr. Singh submits that the petitioner has been
arrested in the present case in an illegal manner and the
petitioner may be released forthwith in view of the
circumstances as has been enumerated above and prayed
for interim bail in the present case and has relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2021(2)
SCC 427, Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others para 63 of the said judgment held
that:
"63. The petition before the High Court was instituted
under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482
CIPC. While dealing with the petition under Section 482
for quashing the FIR, the High Court has not considered
whether prima facie the ingredients of the offence have
been made out in the FIR. If the High Court were to have
carried out this exercise, it would (as we have held in this
judgment) have been apparent that the ingredients of the
offence have not prima facie been established. As a
consequence of its failure to perform its function under
Section 482, the High Court has disabled itself from
exercising f its jurisdiction under Article 226 to consider
the appellant's application for bail. In considering such an
application under Article 226, the High Court must be
circumspect in exercising its powers on the basis of the
facts of each case However, the High Court should not
foreclose itself from the exercise of the power when a
citizen has been arbitrarily deprived of their personal
liberty in an excess of State power."
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case and the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner, it is very painful to notice that the respondent No.
5 who is the Sub-Inspector of the concerned Police Station
In-charge Town Inspector, Police Station Vaishali Nagar,
District Durg has acted in a mala fide manner as it prima
facie appears from the record and he has arrested the
petitioner in the present case knowing-fully well the fact the
petitioner was not named in the FIR and the complainant
has no grudge against him as the complainant had filed an
affidavit in this regard, the Director General of Police, State
of Chhattisgarh is directed to call for an explanation of the
said respondent No.5 and further ensure that the petitioner
is released on interim bail in the present case.
In the meanwhile let a notice be also issued to the
respondent No. 5 and 6.
When the learned State counsel was confronted with
the arguments raised by the petitioner, he tried to justify the
act, but we are not satisfied with the reply submitted by the
learned State counsel.
The Director General of Police, State of Chhattisgarh
is directed to file his personal affidavit in the present case.
Also heard on I.A. No. 01/2025, application for the
grant of interim bail.
Considering the submission advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and also considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, I.A. No. 01/2025, is allowed.
Let the petitioner-Santosh Singh @ Jalandhar
Singh, involved in Crime No. 49/2025, registered at Police
Station : Vaishali Nagar, District- Durg (C.G.) for the offence
punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC,
be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate
concerned within 24 hours on furnishing his personal bond
with two sureties.
Let the matter be listed for further orders on
24.03.2025.
The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a copy of
this order to the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh as
well as Principal District and Sessions Judge, Durg, who
shall forward the same to the Magistrate concerned, for
information and necessary compliance.
Certified copy, today.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Digitally
signed by
ALOK
ALOK SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.03.12
18:08:21
+0530
Alok
