Disposed¶36

Mahadev Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Jun 2025WPCR/195/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh HC (Bilaspur), WPCR No. 195 of 2025, decided 13.06.2025, Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. (with Bibhu Datta Guru, J.): Article 226 petition by Mahadev Dubey alleging torture/beating by police at P.S. Kota and seeking action against SHO Sumit Kumar, disciplinary action, investigation and compensation; E-Rickshaw theft FIR closure report and release application pending before Magistrate; petition disposed of with liberty to take recourse to law for release of the E-Rickshaw.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to law for release of his E-Rickshaw; the petition was otherwise disposed of without further directions. ¶36

Mahadev Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

2025:CGHC:23812-DB

ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA

Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPCR No. 195 of 2025

¶7

NAFR

¶8

Mahadev Dubey S/o Jagdish Dubey Aged About 50 Years R/o House No. 353 Surya Chowk Chingrajpara Chatidih Ward No. 40 Bilaspur Dist. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - Superintendent of Police Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - Sumit Kumar Station House Officer, Police Station Kota, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶14

	... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner	: Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
For Respondent Nos.1 & 2	: Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General
/State	along with Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. GA

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.

¶18

13.06.2025

¶19

1 Heard Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners as well

¶20

as Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General along with

¶21

¶22

Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

¶23

2 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following prayers :-

¶24

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present writ petition preferred by the petitioner and call for the records pertaining to the present case.

¶25

10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order, to direct the respondent authorities to take appropriate action against the respondent no. 3 and other policeman's who assaulted to the petitioner.

¶26

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents no. 1 & 2 to take disciplinary action against the respondent no. 3 and other policeman's who assaulted to the petitioner. And also directed to the higher authorities to investigate the matter regarding the incident with the petitioner at police station Kota.

¶27

10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an order for compensation to the petitioner by the respondent authority.

¶28

10.5 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.”

¶29

3 I.A. No. 02 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner for taking documents on record. The same is allowed and the documents are taken on record.

¶30

4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s mother namely Gayatri Dubey had one property at Chingrajpara,

¶31

¶32

District Bilaspur, she was also having lease and property tax was also being paid her to the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur and the said property has been sold by the mother of the petitioner on 14.12.2022 for an amount of Rs. 6 lacs out of which some amount was given to the petitioner for purchasing of E-Rickshaw, a copy of lease deed dated 10.07.1998 (Annexure-P-10), a copy of property tax papers (Annexure-P-11) and a copy of sell paper (Annexure-P-12) have been filed along with I.A. No. 02 of 2025. He also submitted that the petitioner is the registered owner of the E-Rickshaw in question and has also lodged an FIR for theft of his E-Rickshaw and the matter is still under investigation and the allegations which have been made in the present petition that petitioner was being tortured and beaten by the police personnel at the instance of one Dhanuram Sahu, who had earlier tried to purchase E-Rickshaw and he being defaulter in payment of installments, the E-Rickshaw was sold to the petitioner by the dealer and tax-invoice and registration papers have also been issued in the name of the petitioner.

¶33

5 Learned Advocate General submitted that the allegation that the petitioner was tortured and being beaten by the police is absolutely incorrect and it has been further stated by learned Advocate General that a closure report has been filed with respect to the FIR lodged by the petitioner and the same is pending for consideration before the concerned Magistrate.

¶34

¶35

6 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that he has also moved an application for release of E-Rickshaw before the Magistrate which is also pending.

¶36

7 In that view of the matter, the present petition is accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to law for release of his E-Rickshaw.

¶37

Sd/Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶38

Chandra

Mahadev Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadev Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Aarti Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amit Kumar Chowdhury Vs State of Chhattisgarh

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Vs Laxmi Bai

Anand Ram Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Durgesh Ghritlahare

Mukesh Kumar Aarde Vs State of Chhattisgarh