The Chhattisgarh High Court has sent a strong message about protecting the dignity and authority of courts by refusing anticipatory bail to two men accused of creating trouble inside court premises.
The accused, Sanjeet Kumar Burman and Amrit Das Dahariya, were alleged to be part of a mob that entered a courtroom in Bilaspur, disrupted court proceedings, shouted slogans, threatened people, and physically interfered with police officers who were performing their duties.
Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, while passing the order on January 6, made it clear that no one is allowed to take the law into their own hands in the name of protest or demonstration. The court said that acts like intimidation, obstruction, or violence especially against police or public servants seriously harm the justice system.
The incident took place on November 15, 2025, when a religious storyteller (kathawachak), Ashutosh Chaitanya, was brought to court in connection with another case. According to the prosecution, a mob unlawfully gathered inside the court, created chaos, and stopped the police from doing their job. An FIR was later registered at Civil Lines Police Station under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The two accused claimed they were innocent and said they were falsely named due to political pressure. They also pointed to videos shown by the media, arguing that they were not involved. However, the court found the accusations serious and supported by evidence, including the case diary.
The High Court also noted that both men had criminal histories. One had a previous case registered against him, while the other was facing multiple cases in different police stations. Because of this, the court said they were not entitled to the special relief of anticipatory bail.
The accused also asked for bail on the ground that another co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail. The court rejected this argument, explaining that the co-accused had no criminal record and was granted bail for specific reasons, such as appearing in academic exams. Since the present applicants had criminal antecedents and a more serious role, their situation was different.
The court stressed that court premises are sacred spaces meant only for delivering justice. Granting bail in such cases, the court said, would send the wrong message and reduce public trust in the justice system. Taking into account the seriousness of the allegations and the past behavior of the accused, the High Court dismissed both anticipatory bail applications