Lucknow Bench Of Allahabad HC Awards Rs 10 Lakh Compensation For Failure To Furnish Grounds Of Arrest In Writing
It is most gladdening to see that while allowing a habeas corpus petition, the Lucknow Division Bench of Allahabad High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Abdul Moin and Hon’ble Mr Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Manoj Kumar Thru. His Son Mudit Kumar vs State of UP Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. UP Lko and 4 others in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. – 137 of 2026 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:AHC-LKO:31073-DB that was pronounced as recently as on April 29, 2026 has allowed a habeas corpus petition while declaring the arrest and subsequent detention of an individual illegal due to the failure of police authorities to furnish written grounds of arrest. It must be noted that the Division Bench while displaying zero tolerance for such illegal act imposed an exemplary cost of Rs 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) on the State of Uttar Pradesh while noting a “gross violation” of the constitutional mandates established by the Apex Court. We thus see that the Division Bench allowed the writ petition and issued a writ of habeas corpus declaring the arrest of Manoj Kumar illegal and setting aside the remand order dated January 28, 2026.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Lucknow Division Bench of Allahabad High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Abdul Moin and Hon’ble Mr Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Personal affidavit of the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of U.P. filed today in Court is taken on record.”
Needless to say, the Division Bench then states in para 2 that, “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondents no.1 to 4 and perused the records including the case diary as produced by the learned AGA.”
Briefly stated, the Division Bench then specifies in para 3 stating that, “There is consensus at the bar that the facts of the case including the points in dispute and the consideration of the same has already been made by this Court vide order dated 24.04.2026. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 24.04.2026 is reproduced below:-
“1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 4. Perused the records produced by the learned AGA.
2. No notice be issued to respondent no.5, who is the complainant.
3. By means of the instant petition in the nature of habeas corpus, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“(i) issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus declaring the petitioner’s arrest & detention illegal, pass an order setting aside the remand order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Unnao in Case Crime No.244 of 2024, Police Station Asiwan, District Unnao and direct the respondent No.1, 2, 3 and 4 to release the petitioner forthwith, in the interest of justice.
(ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(iii) Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.”
4. Admittedly, the First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner as FIR No. 244 of 2024, dated 03.09.2024, at Police Station-Asiwan, District- Unnao by the Respondent No. 4/complainant.
5. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner has been arrested on 27.01.2026. A copy of the arrest memo is annexed as annexure no.3 to the petition. The reasons for arrest have been indicated in Column no.13 of the arrest memo, which only indicates about the aforesaid case crime number being lodged against the petitioner.
6. The learned Magistrate vide its order dated 28.01.2026 has granted remand to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail vide Anticipatory Bail Application No.3614 of 2025 in re: Manoj Vs. State of U.P. before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Unnao, which has been rejected vide order dated 07.01.2026, a copy of which is annexed as annexure no.6 to the petition.”
Do note, the Division Bench notes in para 4 that, “From the perusal of the aforesaid order dated 24.04.2026, it emerges that the petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by his arrest and illegal detention and the remand order dated 28.01.2026.”
While citing recent and relevant case laws, the Division Bench envisages in para 5 that, “The sheet anchor of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah versus State of Maharashtra : 2026 (1) SCC 500 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, has held that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed of the grounds of such arrest. The grounds of arrest have also been perused and considered by this Court in the order dated 24.04.2026 and this court has recorded a categorical finding in the said order, after considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Rajinder Rajan versus Union of India : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 327, that the arrest of the petitioner on 27.01.2026 has been made without complying with the procedure as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (Supra) meaning thereby that the arrest of the petitioner on 27.01.2026 is illegal. It is further recorded that the remand order granted by the learned Magistrate dated 28.01.2026, being based on the illegal arrest of the petitioner, is also liable to be set aside keeping in view the judgment of this Court in the case of Shivam Chaurasiya vs. State of U.P. and others : 2026:AHC-LKO:10501-DB. This Court was also of the view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed with exemplary cost and consequently directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to submit his reply as to why exemplary cost should not be awarded to the petitioner for his illegal incarceration in jail since 27.01.2026 till date comprising of a period of almost three months.”
As we see, the Bench observes in para 6 that, “At the outset, learned AGA states that the petitioner still continues to remain in jail and has not been released despite the observations made in the order dated 24.04.2026.”
As things stands, the Bench discloses in para 7 that, “As regards the reply pertaining to explaining as to why exemplary cost should not be awarded learned AGA has filed the personal affidavit of the Additional Chief Secretary (Home).”
It cannot be lost on us that the Division Bench points out in para 8 that, “The Court is constrained to observe that the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) has failed to file a reply with regard to submission of a reply as to why exemplary costs should not be imposed rather has concluded in the penultimate paragraph of the personal affidavit i.e. paragraph 14, that prompt action has been taken by the State authorities in compliance of the order dated 24.04.2026 and necessary steps have been initiated including seeking a detailed report from Director General of Police. It has further been indicated that the matter is under active consideration of the Government and appropriate action shall be taken in accordance with law upon receipt of the report. It thus appears that Additional Chief Secretary (Home) has not even cared to go through the order of this Court dated 24.4.2026 which, as we have already indicated above, required him to file a reply as to why exemplary cost should not be imposed for the illegal incarceration of the petitioner in jail for almost three months.”
Lamentably, the Division Bench while taking potshots points out further in para 9 that, “As already indicated above, the personal affidavit of the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) indicates that appropriate action is being taken or shall be taken after receipt of the report and the personal affidavit does not even contain a whisper regarding the explanation as to why exemplary cost should not be imposed. If this is the non-application of mind at the end of the highest authority of the Home Department i.e. Additional Chief Secretary (Home), we can well understand as to how the other authorities of the State are working!!!”
Quite significantly, the Bench observes in para 10 that, “Accordingly, considering the aforesaid, more particularly when no reply has been filed with regard to explaining as to why exemplary costs should not be imposed, the Court is of the view that while allowing the writ petition, keeping in view the detailed consideration of the facts including the judgments on the relevant point pertaining to the arrest of the petitioner since 27.1.2026, some exemplary cost should also be imposed as the life and personal liberty of the petitioner has been curtailed by the respondent authorities/State in gross violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (Supra).”
It is worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 11 that, “Further, despite the order of this court dated 24.4.2026, the respondent authorities have failed to wake up from their slumber and the illegal incarceration of the petitioner still continues.”
To put it briefly, the Division Bench points out in para 13 that, “In this regard, it would be apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rini Johar and Another versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Others: 2016 (11) SCC 703, wherein in a case of the petitioners having been arrested without complying with the procedural requirements, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that as the arrest was in violation of the due procedure, seriously jeopardizing the dignity of the arrested petitioners consequently, in view of their illegal arrest for a period of 17 days and three weeks for the petitioners, the Hon’ble Supreme Court awarded compensation of Rupees Five Lakhs each to the petitioners to be paid by the State Government. For the sake of convenience, relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rini Johar (supra) are reproduced below:-
“23……It is also clear that liberty of the petitioner was curtailed in violation of law. The freedom of an individual has its sanctity. When the individual liberty is curtailed in an unlawful manner, the victim is likely to feel more anguished, agonized, shaken, perturbed, disillusioned and emotionally torn. It is an assault on his/her identity. The said identity is sacrosanct under the Constitution. Therefore, for curtailment of liberty, requisite norms are to be followed. Fidelity to statutory safeguards instill faith of the collective in the system. It does not require wisdom of a seer to visualize that for some invisible reason, an attempt has been made to corrode the procedural safeguards which are meant to sustain the sanguinity of liberty. The investigating agency, as it seems, has put its sense of accountability to law on the ventilator. The two ladies have been arrested without following the procedure and put in the compartment of a train without being produced before the local Magistrate from Pune to Bhopal. One need not be Argus – eyed to perceive the same. Its visibility is as clear as the cloudless noon day. It would not be erroneous to say that the enthusiastic investigating agency had totally forgotten the golden words of Benjamin Disraeli:
“I repeat …. that all power is a trust – that we are accountable for its exercise – that, from the people and for the people, all springs and all must exist.”
24. We are compelled to say so as liberty which is basically the splendor of beauty of life and bliss of growth, cannot be allowed to be frozen in such a contrived winter. That would tantamount to comatosing of liberty which is the strongest pillar of democracy.
27. In the case at hand, there has been violation of Article 21 and the petitioners were compelled to face humiliation. They have been treated with an attitude of insensibility. Not only there are violation of guidelines issued in the case of D.K. Basu vs. State of W.B. (1997) 1 SCC 416, there are also flagrant violation of mandate of law enshrined under Section 41 and Section 41-A of CrPC. The investigating officers in no circumstances can flout the law with brazen proclivity. In such a situation, the public law remedy which has been postulated in Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa – (1993) 2 SCC 746, Sube Singh v. State of Haryana-(2006) 3 SCC 178, Hardeep Singh v. State of M.P. – (2012) 1 SCC 748 comes into play. The constitutional courts taking note of suffering and humiliation are entitled to grant compensation. That has been regarded as a redeeming feature. In the case at hand, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, we think it appropriate to grant a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs only) towards compensation to each of the petitioners to be paid by the State of M.P. within three months hence. It will be open to the State to proceed against the erring officials, if so advised.””
As a corollary, the Division Bench then directs and holds in para 14 that, “Keeping the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. A writ of habeas corpus is issued declaring the arrest of the petitioner as illegal. The remand order dated 28.1.2026 being consequential to the illegal arrest is also set aside. The petitioner be set free provided he is not wanted in any other case. However, it would be open for the respondents to proceed in accordance with law.”
Most significantly, most commendably and so also most forthrightly, the Division Bench encapsulates in para 15 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “Further, considering the illegal arrest of the petitioner since 27.1.2026 which continues even as of date i.e. 29.4.2026 and his illegal incarceration in jail being of more than three months, the Court is of the view that exemplary costs quantified at Rupees Ten Lakhs are also imposed on the State authorities.”
Finally, the Division Bench then concludes by aptly directing and holding in para 16 that, “The said cost shall be paid at the first instance by the State Government with the liberty to recover the same from the officials who were responsible in accordance with law. The said cost shall be paid to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.”
In sum, we thus see that the Lucknow Division Bench of Allahabad High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Abdul Moin and Hon’ble Mr Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava has made it indubitably clear in this notable judgment that illegal arrest, illegal detention and illegal incarceration would not go unpunished and unaccounted for any longer now! It was pointed out by the Court that the arrest memo merely mentioned the case crime number without disclosing specific grounds for arrest which is mandatory to mention. It was also directed by the Court that the exemplary costs of Rs 10 lakh that was awarded by the Court to the State Government shall be paid to the petitioner within four weeks as mentioned hereinabove! Very rightly so!
Author Bio
