The judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court records the following account. Summoned to Police Station Gharghoda, Raigarh, a Gharghoda man was arrested merely on suspicion though no cognizable or non-bailable offence was made out, and an Ishtgasa under BNSS ss.170/126 was prepared on 25 October 2025. Although the Executive Magistrate ordered his release on a Rs.1 lakh bond and he furnished it, the bond was sent for verification and he spent about four days in judicial custody before release. The Chhattisgarh High Court held that a person arrested merely on suspicion where only a bailable case exists must be released on bail and cannot be remanded to custody. The Court held the detention violated the petitioner's Article 21 right to life and liberty, allowed the writ petition, and directed the State to pay Rs.25,000 compensation within 30 days, citing D.K. Basu, Nilabati Behera and Sube Singh. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →By judgment dated 21 July 2026 in WPCR No. 564 of 2025, the Chhattisgarh High Court (Coram: Ramesh Sinha, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, JJ.) returned findings adverse to the SHO, Police Station Gharghoda, Raigarh, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 25,000.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Judgment dated 21 July 2026. This judgment may still be subject to appeal; initiation or pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Holding not recorded separately.
“The above facts clearly reveal that the right of life and liberty of the petitioner enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get appropriate compensation.” (para 16)
The Chhattisgarh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 25,000.
(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))
(Two unrelated sources removed (a 2010 Kerala judgment in a different, 1970 case and an encyclopedia page about that case); the record rests on the Chhattisgarh High Court order in WPCR No. 564 of 2025.)
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.
These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.
