HC denies bail to men who manhandled cops in court

Raipur: In a stern message underscoring the inviolability of court premises and the primacy of the rule of law, the Chhattisgarh high court has rejected anticipatory bail pleas of two men accused of participating in a mob that allegedly disrupted court proceedings, manhandled police personnel and obstructed them from performing official duties. The court observed that no individual or group can be permitted to take the law into their own hands under the guise of protest or demonstration.Dismissing the applications filed by Sanjeet Kumar Burman and Amrit Das Dahariya, Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha on Jan 6 held that acts of intimidation, obstruction or violence—especially against public servants discharging statutory duties—strike at the very root of the administration of justice. The court made it clear that court premises are neutral, dignified and inviolable spaces meant exclusively for the administration of justice and cannot be converted into venues for protests or public agitations.The case relates to an incident on Nov 15, 2025, when a mob allegedly gathered unlawfully within the court premises in Bilaspur while a kathawachak, Ashutosh Chaitanya, arrested in a separate case, was being produced before a trial court. According to the prosecution, the mob entered the courtroom, raised slogans, threatened the accused and, when police intervened to control the situation, manhandled personnel and obstructed them from performing their duties. An FIR was subsequently registered at Civil Lines police station under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.While the applicants claimed innocence and argued that the FIR was a counter-blast lodged under political pressure, the court found the allegations serious and supported by material on record. It also took note of the criminal antecedents of both applicants—one having a prior case and the other facing multiple cases registered at different police stations—holding that their past conduct disentitled them from discretionary relief.Rejecting the plea of parity with a co-accused who was granted anticipatory bail due to academic examinations and absence of criminal antecedents, the court said the present applicants stood on a different footing owing to their antecedents and the distinct role attributed to them in the incident."The discretionary relief of anticipatory bail is not meant to shield persons who, prima facie, appear to have participated in acts undermining public order and the sanctity of judicial institutions," the court observed, warning that granting such relief in cases involving disruption of judicial proceedings would send a wrong signal to society and erode public confidence in the justice delivery system.Emphasising that societal interest must prevail over individual liberty in such circumstances, the HC concluded that the seriousness of the allegations, coupled with the applicants' past conduct, ruled out the grant of anticipatory bail, and dismissed both applications.