Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Chhattisgarh High Court: In a set of two anticipatory bail applications filed by two men who staged demonstration and obstructed police inside Courtroom in Ashutosh Chaitanya case, the Single Judge Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ., rejected the applications, holding that, prima facie, their conduct could not be viewed lightly, particularly when it involved interference with judicial proceedings and physical obstruction of law enforcement officers.
Background
As per the prosecution, on 15-11-2025, the police personnel had arrested Ashutosh Chaitanya, a storyteller, who had allegedly made some derogatory remarks about the Satnani community while conducting his religious gathering, and was presented before the Trial Court. While taking him to Court, the present accused, along with other co-accused persons, allegedly tried to stop the police personnel and abused Ashutosh Chaitanya.
Thus, an FIR was filed against them under Sections 191(2), 221, 132, 296, 351(2), and 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court noted that on the day of the incident, a mob unlawfully gathered within the court premises, staged a demonstration, entered the courtroom, and threatened to kill Ashutosh Chaitanya. When the police force intervened to control the situation, the mob allegedly manhandled police personnel and obstructed them in the discharge of their official duties. The Court further noted that both accused herein had criminal antecedents.
Considering that one co-accused had been granted anticipatory bail on the ground that his M.A. 3rd Semester examination was scheduled to commence and he had no criminal antecedents, the Court stated that the case of the present accused persons stood on a different footing due to their criminal antecedents and the distinct role attributed to them in the incident. Therefore, the Court held that the benefit of parity could not be extended to them.
The Court remarked that no individual or group of individuals is permitted to take the law into their own hands under the guise of protest, demonstration, or expression of grievance. The rule of law mandates that disputes and grievances must be addressed strictly through lawful and constitutional means. The Court further stated that any act of intimidation, obstruction, or violence, particularly against public servants performing their statutory duties, strikes at the very root of the administration of justice.
“The Court premises, including courtrooms and their immediate precincts, are required to be maintained as neutral, dignified, and inviolable spaces dedicated solely to the administration of justice. They are not meant to be used as venues for protests, demonstrations, or public agitations of any nature.”
The Court added that any unlawful assembly or demonstration within Court premises not only disrupts judicial proceedings but also poses a serious threat to the safety of litigants, advocates, judicial officers, and law enforcement personnel. “Such acts, if condoned, would erode public confidence in the justice delivery system and encourage lawlessness.”
Regarding the present case, the Court stated that the allegations against the accused persons disclose that a mob unlawfully assembled within the Court premises, entered the Courtroom, raised slogans, issued threats, and obstructed police personnel who were discharging their official duties. Prima facie, such conduct could not be viewed lightly, particularly when it involved interference with judicial proceedings and physical obstruction of law enforcement officers. The seriousness of the allegations was further aggravated by the fact that the incident occurred at a place where discipline, order, and respect for the rule of law are paramount.
Moreover, the Court stated that the presence of a criminal antecedent against the accused persons disentitled them from seeking discretionary relief under anticipatory bail, as it reflected adversely on their conduct and raised legitimate apprehension regarding their propensity to repeat such acts or interfere with the investigation.
“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.”
Accordingly, the Court rejected the bail applications.
[Sanjeet Kumar Burman v. State of Chhattisgarh, MCRCA No. 1996 of 2025, decided on 06-01-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the applicants: Anchal Kumar Matre
For the respondent: Bharat Gulabani, Panel Lawyer