Chhattisgarh HC Directs Close Watch on Head Constable After Magistrate Found Arrest Procedure Illegal, Citing Arnesh Kumar
The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed a criminal writ petition after the Superintendent of Police, Korba filed a personal affidavit confirming a departmental warning against the investigating officer for procedural lapses in arrest and remand, but directed that the officer's conduct be kept under close watch for any future breach.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, led by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, on 16 July 2026 disposed of a writ petition filed by Ajay Agrawal, a resident of Ward No. 09, Premnagar, Rajgamar, Korba. Agrawal had moved the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India after police officials of Police Station Balco allegedly entered his grocery shop and adjoining residence without a warrant, assaulted his son and family members, and removed the DVR of their CCTV system — all without registering an FIR on the family's complaint. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba had already found the police conduct prima facie illegal and contrary to the directions in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, yet the petitioner alleged that no departmental action followed. The court ultimately closed the petition after receiving a compliance affidavit from the Korba Superintendent of Police, while making clear that a mere warning cannot be treated as the end of the matter.
What Happened at the Grocery Shop and in the Magistrate's Court
According to the petitioner's counsel, Mr. Hari Agrawal, on 29 March 2026, police personnel from Police Station Balco entered Ajay Agrawal's grocery shop and attached residential premises without producing any warrant or lawful authority. During the visit, the petitioner's son — Arpit Agrawal — and other family members were allegedly assaulted. The police party also took away the DVR from the CCTV system installed at the premises.
The petitioner immediately filed a written complaint with the police authorities, but no FIR was registered on his complaint and the injured family members were not provided medical examination. Instead, a counter FIR was registered against Arpit Agrawal and other family members.
The matter came before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba during remand proceedings on 29 March 2026 itself. The Magistrate declined to grant police remand, released Arpit Agrawal on bail, and recorded that the conduct of the concerned police personnel was prima facie illegal, suspicious, and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar. The Magistrate directed the Superintendent of Police, Korba and the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh to take appropriate action against the concerned officials.
Despite those directions, the petitioner submitted that no departmental or other action was initiated. Ajay Agrawal then filed a detailed representation dated 14 April 2026 before the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, requesting implementation of the Magistrate's directions. That representation remained unattended.
The Writ Petition and the Court's Earlier Direction
Ajay Agrawal invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, seeking a writ directing Respondents 2 and 3 — the Director General of Police and the Superintendent of Police, Korba — to take appropriate departmental action against the erring officials in accordance with the directions in Arnesh Kumar, and separately to decide his representation dated 14 April 2026 within a time-bound period.
When the matter was taken up on 8 July 2026, the Division Bench, taking note of the allegations and the Magistrate's observations, directed the Superintendent of Police, Korba to file a personal affidavit explaining: the reasons for non-compliance with the Magistrate's order of 29 March 2026; what action, if any, had been taken against the concerned police personnel; why the petitioner's representation had not been decided; and whether responsibility had been fixed on the officers found responsible.
What the SP's Affidavit Said
In compliance with the court's order of 8 July 2026, the Superintendent of Police, Korba filed a personal affidavit before the Division Bench on 16 July 2026. The affidavit set out the following sequence of events.
Upon receipt of a copy of the Magistrate's order on 7 April 2026, the SP directed the City Superintendent of Police (CSP), Korba to conduct a detailed fact-finding enquiry. The CSP submitted his enquiry report on 5 May 2026.
The affidavit explained the police's version of the 29 March 2026 incident. It stated that Arpit Agrawal had criminal antecedents, including an FIR in connection with an alleged murder registered as FIR No. 202/2025 at Police Station Balco under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS), and a total of six criminal cases. The police party of five personnel had been sent only to serve a notice in Crime No. 174/2026. The affidavit further stated that on 29 March 2026, many police personnel from across the district, including those from Police Outpost Rajgamar (under Police Station Balco's jurisdiction), had been deployed for a large religious congregation at Village Dhapdhap, leaving the station short-staffed.
According to the affidavit, when the police party reached the premises to serve the notice, Arpit Agrawal and family members, along with associate Sahil Das, allegedly obstructed and assaulted the police personnel, resulting in registration of FIR No. 181/2026 under Sections 221, 132, 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 3(5) BNS. The enquiry report found no misconduct or dereliction of duty on the part of the police party that had gone to serve the notice.
The affidavit did, however, acknowledge procedural lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer, Head Constable Guruwar Singh (Batch No. 174). The CSP's enquiry found that he had not properly filled the arrest checklist as required under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and had failed to remain present during the remand proceedings. On 23 June 2026, the SP issued a strict warning to Head Constable Guruwar Singh, directing him not to repeat such acts. The affidavit explained that the warning — rather than a heavier penalty — was chosen because this was his first proven lapse, and in accordance with a Government of Chhattisgarh General Administration Department Notification dated 12 June 2008, which mandates counselling and a warning for employees belonging to the SC, ST, and OBC communities on their first mistake. Head Constable Guruwar Singh belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category.
How the Division Bench Reasoned
Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, writing the order on behalf of the bench, accepted that the Magistrate's directions of 29 March 2026 had been acted upon: a fact-finding enquiry had been conducted and administrative action had followed against Head Constable Guruwar Singh. The court held that the petitioner's grievance regarding complete inaction “no longer survives for consideration.”
The bench was, however, careful to make a distinction. It held that mere issuance of a warning should not be construed as an end of the matter. The court said the Magistrate's observations were aimed at securing strict adherence to the statutory safeguards governing arrest and remand proceedings and at ensuring accountability of police officials. The procedural requirements under the BNSS and the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar were described as being of paramount importance, not to be diluted by treating such lapses casually.
The bench stated that every police officer is expected to discharge statutory obligations with due diligence and in strict conformity with the provisions of the BNSS, 2023 and the law declared by the Supreme Court. Treating procedural non-compliance with the arrest checklist and failure to attend remand proceedings as minor technical errors would, in the court's view, undermine the safeguards that Arnesh Kumar was designed to enforce.
While the court declined to keep the writ petition pending in view of the action stated to have been taken, it issued prospective directions to prevent recurrence.
Outcome
The Division Bench disposed of WPCR No. 370 of 2026 with the following directions:
The Superintendent of Police, Korba is directed to keep the service conduct and future performance of Head Constable Guruwar Singh (Batch No. 174) under close watch. If any similar lapse, negligence, or misconduct is noticed in future, it shall be open to the competent authority to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against him in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the fact that only a warning has been issued on the present occasion.
The Superintendent of Police is also directed to ensure that all police personnel under his administrative control strictly adhere to the statutory safeguards governing arrest, remand, and investigation, and scrupulously comply with the law laid down by the Supreme Court so that such procedural lapses do not recur.
There is no order as to costs.