‘Courts not for protests’: Chhattisgarh High Court denies bail to ‘mob’ members who stormed courtroom to threaten accused

Chhattisgarh High Court emphasised the sanctity of judicial spaces and made it clear that such conduct could not be condoned. (Image enhanced using AI)

Findings

• Allegations disclosed a serious incident involving unlawful assembly within the court premises, entry into the courtroom, raising of slogans, issuance of threats to the accused, and physical obstruction of police personnel.
• Sanctity of judicial spaces and made it clear that such conduct could not be condoned.
• Any unlawful assembly or demonstration within court premises disrupts judicial proceedings.
• Such acts also pose a serious threat to the safety of litigants, advocates, judicial officers, and law enforcement personnel.
• Condoning such acts would erode public confidence in the justice delivery system and encourage lawlessness.
• No individual or group is permitted to take the law into their own hands under the guise of protest or expression of grievance, particularly when it involves intimidation or obstruction of public servants.
• Granting anticipatory bail in such circumstances would send a wrong signal to society.
• Seriousness of the allegations and the need to protect the sanctity of judicial institutions outweighed the applicants’ claim for pre-arrest protection.

Background

• A kathawachak (religious storyteller), Ashutosh Chaitanya, was arrested for allegedly making derogatory remarks against the Satnami community during a religious discourse on November 15, 2025.
• An FIR was registered for hurting the religious sentiments of the community, and the accused was produced before the trial court at Bilaspur.
• It was alleged that while the police were escorting the storyteller to the court, a mob unlawfully gathered within the court premises.
• Members of the mob allegedly raised slogans, abused and threatened the accused, and obstructed police personnel in the discharge of their official duties.
• The mob allegedly disrupted judicial proceedings and created a law-and-order situation within the court complex.
• An FIR under Sections 191(2) (rioting), 221 (obstructing public servants in discharge of public functions), 132 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant), 296 (obscene act), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), and 299 (outraging religious feelings) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) was registered following which the two men moved the high court.

Arguments

• Counsel for applicants claimed they were innocent.
• It was argued that they had gone near the court premises for personal work and had not participated in any protest, slogan-raising, or obstruction of police personnel.
• The defence claimed that the FIR was a “counter-blast” lodged under political pressure to dilute the alleged misconduct of another group, against whom a separate FIR had already been registered.
• The applicants also relied on video footage of the incident circulated in the media, asserting that a perusal of the recordings would show that they were not present or involved in the alleged acts.
• They further submitted that they were willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions imposed by the court.
• The state’s counsel submitted that the applicants had actively participated in the unlawful assembly inside the court premises, manhandled police officials, and obstructed them from performing their lawful duties.
• The prosecution also pointed out that one applicant had six criminal antecedents, while the other had at least one prior criminal case.
• The prosecution said the men were not entitled to anticipatory bail.