In a powerful ruling that reinforces the absolute sanctity of courtrooms, the Chhattisgarh High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to two individuals accused of being part of a mob that disrupted judicial proceedings and assaulted police personnel. The court delivered a stern message that such acts strike at the very foundation of justice.
Court's Stern Message on Judicial Sanctity
The bench led by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha dismissed the bail applications of Sanjeet Kumar Burman and Amrit Das Dahariya on January 6. The court firmly stated that no person or group can be allowed to take the law into their own hands, even under the pretext of protest or demonstration. It emphasized that court premises are neutral, dignified, and inviolable spaces dedicated solely to the administration of justice and must never become grounds for public agitation.
Details of the Bilaspur Court Incident
The case stems from an event that occurred on November 15, 2025, at the court premises in Bilaspur. According to the prosecution, a mob gathered unlawfully while a kathawachak named Ashutosh Chaitanya, arrested in a separate case, was being presented before a trial court. The alleged mob members entered the courtroom, raised slogans, and threatened the accused. When police officers stepped in to manage the situation, they were reportedly manhandled and obstructed from performing their official duties.
Following the incident, a First Information Report (FIR) was filed at the Civil Lines police station under relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Why Bail Was Denied: Past Conduct and Serious Charges
The accused individuals pleaded innocence, arguing that the FIR was a politically motivated counterblast. However, the High Court found the allegations to be grave and backed by evidence on record. A crucial factor in the rejection was the criminal antecedents of both applicants. One had a prior case registered against him, while the other faced multiple cases at different police stations. The court held that their past conduct made them ineligible for discretionary relief.
The court also rejected their argument for parity with a co-accused who had been granted bail, noting that the co-accused had no criminal history and was facing academic examinations. The present applicants, the court ruled, stood on a completely different footing due to their records and the specific roles attributed to them in the incident.
Broader Implications for Justice and Public Order
In its concluding remarks, the High Court underscored that the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail is not designed to protect individuals who appear, prima facie, to have participated in acts that undermine public order and the sanctity of judicial institutions. Granting bail in such cases, the court warned, would send the wrong signal to society and erode public trust in the justice system.
The judgment made it clear that in circumstances where the administration of justice and public order are threatened, societal interest must prevail over individual liberty. Given the seriousness of the accusations and the applicants' past conduct, the court found no grounds for anticipatory bail and dismissed both pleas.
