[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Mohit Ram Rathiya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:12600-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 145 of 2026
Mohit Ram Rathiya S/o Suk Singh Rathiya Aged About 40 Years
Resident Of Village- Khamhar, Kogpara, Police Station- Dharamjaigarh,
District- Raigarh (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department,
Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Inspector General of Police Bilaspur Range, District- Bilaspur
(C.G.)
3. The Superintendent of Police Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.)
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) Dharamjaigarh, District-
Raigarh (C.G.)
5. The Station House Officer Police Station, Dharamjaigarh, District-
Raigarh (C.G.)
...Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
Digitally
signed by
For Petitioner : Mr. Harish Khuntiya, Advocate.
BRIJMOHAN
BRIJMOHAN MORLE
MORLE Date:
For Respondents/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate.
2026.03.17
17:56:17
+0530
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
17.03.2026
1. Heard Mr. Harish Khuntiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for
the State/respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayers:
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to direct the respondents No. 1 & 2 for conducting
investigation through independent agency for the
death of Naresh Rathiya.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct the respondent No. 1 for paying adequate
compensation to the petitioner for the death of his
nephew Naresh Rathiya.
10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit
and just in the facts and circumstances of the case
including award of the costs of the petition may be
given."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a
citizen of India and, as such, is entitled to enjoy all the rights and
protections guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
on 02.10.2025, the petitioner along with his nephew, Naresh Rathiya,
and other relatives had gone to attend the Dashahra Fair at
Dharamjaigarh. After enjoying the fair, they were returning to their
village Khamhar by tractor. While returning, when they reached near
village Gogojhariya, they noticed that two bikers, namely Ashish Rathiya
and Saroj Bhoy, had collided with a truck and both had died on the spot.
At that time, police personnel had already reached the place of incident
and Ambulance (Dial-108) as well as Ambulance (Dial-112) were also
present there. Both the bikers were known to the petitioner as well as to
Naresh Rathiya. Therefore, when the tractor reached near the place of
incident, Naresh Rathiya got down from the tractor to see the deceased
persons.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the police
personnel lifted the dead bodies of Ashish Rathiya and Saroj Bhoy into
the Ambulance (Dial-108) and also took Naresh Rathiya in the same
ambulance. It is submitted that at the time when Naresh Rathiya was
taken into the Ambulance (Dial-108), he was alive. However, on the next
day, i.e., 03.10.2025, the petitioner was informed that his nephew
Naresh Rathiya had died and that his dead body was lying in Civil
Hospital, Dharamjaigarh. It is further submitted that in respect of the
death of Ashish Rathiya and Saroj Bhoy, Merg No. 107/2025 was
registered at Police Station Dharamjaigarh.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the death of
Naresh Rathiya is highly suspicious and the petitioner has a strong
apprehension that Naresh Rathiya was assaulted by the police
personnel while he was being taken in the ambulance, which resulted in
his death. It is further submitted that the petitioner reported the incident
before Police Station Dharamjaigarh, where Merg No. 108/2025 was
registered under Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023; however, till date no fair and proper investigation has
been conducted regarding the suspicious death of Naresh Rathiya.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the petitioner
has obtained a short video of the incident just prior to the death of
Naresh Rathiya, which, according to him, indicates that the death of
Naresh Rathiya is suspicious and that the police personnel are
attempting to treat the same as an accidental death. It is also submitted
that the postmortem of the dead body of Naresh Rathiya was
conducted, wherein the cause of death has been mentioned as "blunt
trauma to the head" and the manner of death has been described as
consistent with accidental injuries. It is further submitted that the
petitioner has made several complaints before the concerned
authorities seeking a proper and fair investigation into the death of
Naresh Rathiya, but no effective action has been taken so far. It is also
contended that the parents of Naresh Rathiya had already passed away
and he was living with the petitioner like his own son. According to the
petitioner, when Naresh Rathiya was taken into the ambulance by the
police personnel, he was alive and in normal condition, and the police
personnel forcibly took him into the ambulance despite the petitioner's
objection, which was not heeded to by them.
8. Despite the serious suspicion surrounding the death of Naresh
Rathiya and the complaints made by the petitioner, it is alleged that the
respondent authorities have failed to conduct a proper and impartial
investigation into the matter.
9. On a pointed query made by this Court as to whether any FIR has
been lodged in the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that complaints have been made before the concerned authorities.
10. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the grievance of
the petitioner can be adequately addressed before the competent Court
by filing an application under Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the
Cr.P.C., now corresponding to Section 175(3) or Section 223 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It is further submitted that
the controversy raised in the present petition already stands settled by
the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Misc. Bench No. 24492
of 2020 (Waseem Haider vs. State of U.P. through Principal
Secretary, Home & Others) decided on 14.12.2020 as well as by this
Court in WPCR No. 333 of 2020 (Akhilesh Agrawal vs. State of
Chhattisgarh & Others) decided on 12.04.2023, wherein similar
petitions were dismissed. Accordingly, it is submitted that the present
petition also deserves to be dismissed on the same grounds.
11. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties and the nature of relief sought in the present petition, this Court
is of the view that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy
available before the competent Court under the provisions of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
12. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed with liberty to
the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies before the competent
Court/forum, in accordance with law.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan
