Allahabad HC Orders UP State To Pay Rs 1.25 Lakh For 5-Day Illegal Detention

It is really most gladdening which warms the innermost cockles of my heart to learn that Allahabad High Court, which is one of the oldest high courts and so also the biggest high court in the entire world, has most decisively once again stepped forward in a learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgement titled Gyanti Devi And 2 Others v State of UP & 3 Others in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. – 1449 of 2026 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:AHC:225518-DB that was pronounced just recently on October 29, 2026, to catch the bull by the horns, and while displaying absolute zero tolerance to illegal detention of the police, has stepped forward to order the State to pay a compensation of Rs 1.25 lakh to a man who was unlawfully detained for five days at a police station.

This is definitely no less than any big crime committed by those who are meant to protect the law and deserves to be nipped in the bud at the earliest, as it brooks no more delay any longer now! The earlier it is done, the better it shall be for our society and our democratic country!

Allahabad High Court Takes A Strong Stand Against Illegal Police Detention

It certainly merits just no reiteration that the heavier the compensation is ordered to be paid for illegal detention in such cases, the more police will be deterred from taking the right to life and personal liberty for granted, which is a fundamental right as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, and so also Article 22 ensures protection against arbitrary and illegal arrests.

Article 21 And Article 22: Constitutional Protection Against Illegal Arrests

It must be noted that a Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr Justice Atul Sreedharan and Hon’ble Mr Justice Achal Sachdev minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that the investigating officer, who had detained the man, demonstrated an “arrogance of authority” by not following the procedure established by law.

Division Bench Observations on the Investigating Officer’s Arrogance of Authority

It merits noting that the Division Bench was most unequivocal in asserting boldly that:

“The manner in which the I.O. has demonstrated his arrogance of authority by detaining petitioner No. 2 for a full five days without even thinking twice and without following the procedure established by law makes it appear that he considered it business as usual.”

Case Details: Gyanti Devi and 2 Others v State Of UP & 3 Others

It also must be taken into account that the Division Bench then also added that the harshest punishment should be imposed upon the errant police officer in case he is found guilty in a departmental inquiry initiated by the police department in the matter. Going ahead, the Division Bench then also further proceeded to order the payment of Rs 1.25 lakh to the person who was detained illegally for five days.

In addition, those police officials who are most instrumental in detaining illegally any person must be made to face similar punishment of himself/herself, being subjected to imprisonment in jail for the same term as the person who is detained illegally suffers, apart from very heavy compensation, to ensure that no person is ever detained illegally and arbitrarily by the police any more now!

Division Bench Observations And Directions On Illegal Police Detention

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgement authored by a Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr Justice Atul Sreedharan and Hon’ble Mr Justice Achal Sachdev sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that “Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State.”

As we see, the Division Bench then specifies in para 2, stating that “the present petition has been filed by petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 for the release of petitioner No. 2, Chandan Rajbhar.”

Background And Facts Of The Illegal Detention Case

To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 3 laying bare that “the brief facts of the case are that petitioner No. 3 is the wife of petitioner No. 2 and the daughter-in-law of petitioner No. 1.” Respondent No.4 is the mother of petitioner No.3 and the complainant in this case.

As per the case of the petitioners, petitioner No. 2, who is in custody, and petitioner No. 3 are husband and wife. An FIR was lodged by respondent No. 4 on 18.07.2026, which was registered as Case Crime No. 234 of 2026 under Section 87 of the BNS at Police Station Salempur, District Deoria, alleging therein that on 14.07.2026 at about 7:00 a.m., petitioner No. 2 eloped with her 18-year-old daughter, who is petitioner No. 3.”

Marriage And Relocation To Pune

As it turned out, the Division Bench enunciates in para 4 that, “Thereafter, as stated in the petition, the marriage between petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 3 was solemnised at a Durga Temple in District Siwan, Bihar.

After their marriage, petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are stated to have shifted to Pune, where they were living together as husband and wife. In the course of time, petitioner No. 2 came to be in the family way and informed petitioner No. 1 that they had been taken into custody on 28.08.2026 at Police Station Salempur, District Deoria, and were being detained in police custody.

During the intervening night of 24.08.2026 and 25.08.2026, the personnel of Police Station Salempur, accompanied by the father of Petitioner No.3, reached the matrimonial residence of the couple at Pune, took both petitioner No.2 and Petitioner No.3 into custody, and brought them to Police Station Salempur during the intervening night of 27.08.2026 and 28.08.2026.”

Communication Of Arrest To Family Members

Be it noted, the Division Bench notes in para 5 that “it is further alleged in the petition that, at the time of arrest, the police had taken away the mobile phones of both petitioner Nos. 2 and 3.

However, petitioner No. 3 is stated to have managed to send a message regarding their arrest and confinement to the younger brother of petitioner No. 2, who resides abroad and who, in turn, informed petitioner No. 1 and her daughter about their arrest.

Upon receiving the information, petitioner No. 1, along with her daughter, went to the police station on 28.08.2026 and remained seated there for the entire day.”

Five Days Of Alleged Unlawful Police Custody

As things stand, the Division Bench spells out in para 6 specifying that “the case of petitioner No. 2 is that he was kept under unlawful detention from 28.08.2026 to 02.09.2026 and that his arrest memo was subsequently prepared on 02.09.2026.”

Court Orders CCTV Footage Of Police Station

Do note, the Division Bench notes in para 7 that “This Court, by way of its previous order dated 09.10.2026, had directed the police to produce the CCTV recordings of P.S. Salempur, District Deoria, from 6:00 p.m. on 27.08.2026 till 10:00 p.m. on 02.09.2026.”

Police Inquiry Confirms Illegal Confinement

Do also note, the Division Bench then notes in para 8 that, “In compliance with the said order, the CCTV footage has been produced.

However, learned counsel for the State has fairly submitted that, if the affidavit of Mr Abhijeet R. Shankar, Superintendent of Police, District Deoria, is taken into consideration, there may be no necessity to peruse the CCTV recordings.

In this regard, learned counsel for the State has drawn the attention of this Court to the report dated 21.10.2026, prepared by the Circle Officer (CO) and forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, District Deoria, wherein there is a categorical acceptance, pursuant to an inquiry conducted into the conduct of Mr Deep Narayan Yadav, Investigating Officer, that the I.O. had deliberately taken petitioner No. 2 into custody on 28.08.2026 and kept him in illegal confinement till 02.09.2026, when his formal arrest was shown.”

Allahabad High Court’s Findings on Five Days of Illegal Police Detention

Plainly speaking, the Division Bench then points out in para 9 that “Thus, the report of the Circle Officer accepts the fact that petitioner No. 2 was kept under unlawful detention for five days at P.S. Salempur and that his fabricated arrest (फर्जी गिरफ्तारी) was shown on 02.09.2026, as per the said report, whereafter he was produced before the Magistrate for remand. The report further records a finding that the I.O., in contravention of his duties and in gross dereliction thereof, had acted in a negligent manner. The report also accepts that petitioner No. 2 was unlawfully detained for those five days at the police station itself. Pursuant to the said report of the Circle Officer, the Superintendent of Police, Deoria, passed an order on 21.10.2026 initiating departmental proceedings against the I.O. under the relevant applicable provisions of law.”

Division Bench Appreciates Honest Police Inquiry and Accountability

Most commendably, the Division Bench underscores in para 10 holding unambiguously that “This Court appreciates the candour and honesty displayed by the Circle Officer in disclosing the true facts to this Court through his inquiry report.” This Court also appreciates the subsequent action taken by the Superintendent of Police, Deoria, upon receipt of the report of the Circle Officer.”

It is worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 11 that “Therefore, what comes out from the entire exercise conducted by the police is that the case of the petitioner is accepted relating to unlawful detention.”

Court Orders Immediate Release of Illegally Detained Person

As a corollary, the Division Bench directs and holds in para 12 that, “In view of above, the petition is allowed. Petitioner No.2 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.”

Allahabad High Court Calls for Strict Disciplinary Action Against Investigating Officer

Most significantly and so also most forthrightly, the Division Bench encapsulates in para 13 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “As regards the compensation prayed for in this particular case, the manner in which the I.O. has demonstrated his arrogance of authority, by detaining petitioner No.2 for full five days without even thinking twice and without following the procedure established by law, makes it appear that he considered it business as usual. Therefore, this Court expects that, if the I.O. is found guilty as charged in the departmental inquiry, the harshest punishment for his deliberate actions be considered to be imposed upon him.”

Rs.1,25,000 Compensation for Five Days of Illegal Detention

Equally significant, it would be instructive to note that the Division Bench then hastens to add in para 14 noting that, “As regards compensation, this Court is of the opinion that, for the period of five days undergone by petitioner No.2 in custody without adherence to the procedure established by law, compensation at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per day is granted, which amounts to Rs.1,25,000/-. This shall not preclude the right of petitioner No.2 to sue the Police Department in an action in tort for damages.”

For sake of clarity, the Division Bench clarifies in para 15 mentioning that, “The observations made by this Court while deciding the present case shall in no way affect the criminal case pending against petitioner No.2, which shall be tried and concluded on the basis of the evidence adduced before the learned Trial Court, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.”

Court Recognises Honest Police Officers and Their Conduct

It would be worthwhile to note that the Division Bench notes in para 17 that, “This Court also requests the State to enter the appreciation of this Court with regard to the conduct of Mr. Rajesh Chaturvedi, Circle Officer, Rudrapur, District Deoria, and Mr. Abhijeet R. Shankar, Superintendent of Police, Deoria, in their respective service records for the manner in which they have made a full and true disclosure of the actions of the Investigating Officer.”

Compensation to Be Recovered From Guilty Police Officials

Finally and far most significantly, the Division Bench in the fitness of things then concludes by directing and holding in para 18 that, “The compensation granted to the petitioner shall be recovered from such persons who, after an inquiry, are found guilty of having detained him. The State may effect such recovery, if so desired.”

Why Illegal Police Detention Demands Strict Punishment and Accountability

In a nutshell, it is high time and Centre needs to amend the penal laws in this direction to ensure that those police officials who subject any person to illegal detention are made to face the most strictest punishment so that men in uniform dare not take the legal and constitutional rights of any citizen of India for granted any longer now and innocents are saved from being subjected to illegal detention!

Even if a person is guilty, the punishment must be in accordance with law and detention which cannot be justified is legally untenable and so cannot be subjected on any pretext whatsoever!

We thus see that the Allahabad High Court in this leading case most commendably allowed the petition and so also ordered the release of Rajbhar.

We need to also note that the Court was most forthright in appreciating the Circle Officer Rajesh Chaturvedi’s report disclosing the true facts through his inquiry report. It also very rightly applauded SP Abhijeet R Shankar while conceding explicitly that the investigating officer Deep Narayan Yadav had illegally detained Rajbhar for five days.

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A – 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Important Links

• Lawyers in India
• Copyright Registration in India
• Caveat Filing in Supreme Court of India
• Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi/NCR : WhatsApp 9650499965