Allahabad HC Orders Release, Rs 50,000 Compensation for Illegal Police Custody

Summary: The Allahabad High Court, in Kamlesh Kumar (Corpus) and Another v. State of U.P. and Others, considered the allegation that Kamlesh Kumar had been unlawfully detained by police from 15.08.2026 and was produced before a Magistrate only on 19.08.2026. The Division Bench confined its consideration to the alleged unlawful detention. It noted material from the police affidavits, CCTV footage and inquiry report indicating that the petitioner had been taken from his medical shop by police on 15.08.2026 and sent to jail on 19.08.2026. No satisfactory explanation had been offered for the intervening detention. The Court held that the petitioner had been kept in illegal custody from 15.08.2026 until his production before the Magistrate and judicial remand on 19.08.2026. It directed his immediate release if he was not wanted in any other case, while clarifying that any subsequent arrest must follow the procedure established by law and that he would be required to join the investigation upon notice under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The State was directed to pay ₹50,000 as compensation for the illegal detention, with recovery from persons found responsible after due inquiry. The Court appreciated the candour of the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the Station House Officer in acknowledging the error, while noting that the petitioner had been deprived of the protection of procedure established by law for nearly five days. Compensation was to be paid forthwith, and recovery was to follow the disciplinary inquiry within three months.

Allahabad High Court Holds Police Custody from 15 to 19 August Illegal

The Allahabad High Court held that Kamlesh Kumar had been kept in illegal police custody from 15.08.2026 until he was produced before a Magistrate on 19.08.2026. A Division Bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev passed the order in Kamlesh Kumar (Corpus) and Another v. State of U.P. and Others, Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 1222 of 2026, on 18.09.2026. The Court directed his immediate release if he was not wanted in any other case and ordered the State to pay ₹50,000 as compensation.

The order arose from a habeas corpus petition alleging that police had taken the petitioner from his shop on 15.08.2026 but had not produced him before a Magistrate until 19.08.2026. The Court confined its decision to the legality of that detention and did not decide the merits of the criminal allegations against him.

Allahabad High Court Examines Alleged Unlawful Detention

At the outset, the Division Bench recorded the allegation of detention and the affidavits filed pursuant to its earlier direction. Paragraph 1 of the order states:

“Present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who alleges illegal detention by the respondent-State from 15.08.2026 onwards. In the petition, it was alleged that the petitioner was unlawfully lifted by two armed police men from his shop on 15.08.2026 (the reference to the VC footage has already been made in the previous order passed by this Court on 03.09.2026). On that date, this Court had called for the personal affidavit of the Superintendent of Police of the District. Pursuant thereto, affidavits of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Yamuna Nagar, Commissionerate, Prayagraj and S.H.O. Police Station Meja, District Prayagraj, have been filed, which are taken on record.”

Property Dispute, Inquiry and Registration of Case Crime

The Court then referred to the Deputy Commissioner of Police’s affidavit concerning a property dispute, a complaint about the petitioner’s nationality and the subsequent registration of a criminal case. Paragraph 2 records:

“Having gone through the affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, with specific reference to paragraph-6 of the affidavit, it has been recorded therein that the petitioner has a property dispute with his neighbour Geeta Vishwas, who levelled a serious allegation against him of being a citizen of Bangladesh and filed a police complaint against the petitioner. The inquiry was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Meja, Commissionerate Prayagraj. Upon the conclusion of which, Case Crime No. 429 of 2026 was registered under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of BNS, Sections 21 and 22 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 and Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967 at P.S. Meja, District Prayagraj. An inquiry that was conducted into the allegations made by Geeta Vishwas relating to the nationality of the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Intelligence), Commissionerate Prayagraj alleges that the petitioner is actually a resident of Maispada, Police Station Nadai, District Nadai, Bangladesh and his temporary address is Barbariya Kushwadia, Police Station Nadia, West Bengal. The inquiry report is dated 27.06.2026.”

The provisions referred to in this passage include Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 21 and 22 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025. The Court recorded the allegations in the police material but expressly declined to comment on their merits.

Allahabad High Court Restricts Itself to Unlawful Police Custody

The Division Bench made clear that its inquiry concerned the petitioner’s custody from 15.08.2026, rather than the substance of the criminal case. Referring to the police affidavit, CCTV footage and inquiry report, paragraph 3 states:

“This Court desists from reflecting anything on merits of the case and is restricting itself exclusively to the allegation of unlawful detention/custody of the petitioner from 15.08.2026 onwards. In this regard, in paragraph-8 of the affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner, it is averred that in the inquiry conducted, the deponent arrived at the conclusion from the records and the CCTV footages that the petitioner was taken from his medical shop in Sonar Tara by the police of Police Station Meja on 15.08.2026 and sent to jail on 19.08.2026. It is further recorded that no satisfactory reply has been given by Mr. Nitendra Shukla, S.H.O. of Police Station Meja and the Investigating Officer/Additional Inspector Mr. Kamlesh Yadav regarding the detention of Kamlesh Kumar Vishwas on 15.08.2026 in this manner. It is further averred that both these officers mentioned hereinabove have committed gross negligence towards the duties and a copy of the inquiry report dated 17.09.2026 is also annexed to the affidavit as annexure-2. In paragraph-9, the deponent has informed the Court that in view of the negligence shown by the aforementioned officers of the said police station, they have been suspended vide order dated 17.09.2026 under Rule 17(1)(A) of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Police Officers (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991.”

Police Explanation and Admission of Detention

The SHO’s affidavit stated that he had intended the constables to ask the petitioner to report to the police station on Independence Day, but that they had instead asked him to accompany them. The SHO also described his involvement in responding to a separate firing incident and the subsequent registration of an FIR against the petitioner. The Court reproduced those circumstances in paragraph 4:

“As regards the affidavit of the S.H.O., the S.H.O. has stated that he was aware that the petitioner had some Bangladeshi connections and an inquiry, in this regard, was conducted by the A.C.P. Meja. However, he says that 15th of August being Independence Day, the deponent was taking precautions and had instructed Constable Aditya and Constable Sahil to ask the petitioner to report at the police station on 15.08.2026. It is the case of the S.H.O. that the constables misunderstood the message and instead of intimating him to report at the police station, asked him to accompany them to the police station. In paragraph-9, the S.H.O. states that at around 4.00 pm, on 15.08.2026, information was received at Police Station Meja with regard to the firing incident which had taken place in the locality and the deponent immediately left the police station and proceeded to the S.R.N. Hospital Prayagraj for admitting the injured persons, and that the distance between Police Station Meja and S.R.N. Hospital is about 60 K.M. Copy of the first information report lodged as Case Crime No. 428 of 2026 on 16.08.2026, has been annexed as annexure-2 to the affidavit. Thereafter, the deponent (S.H.O.) states that he was at S.R.N. Hospital Prayagraj till early morning hours of 16.08.2026 and in the meantime, on 16.08.2026, the inquiry report along with the instructions of the D.C.P. Yamunanagar to lodge an F.I.R. against the petitioner reached the police station. On the basis of which, the F.I.R., which has already been referred hereinabove, was registered on 16.08.2026. Therefore, there is a clear cut admission on the part of the police with regard to the illegal detention of the petitioner for more than 24 hours. Thereafter, he was only produced before the Magistrate on 19.08.2026 and sent to judicial remand by the Court of A.C.J.M-10, Prayagraj.”

Allahabad High Court Holds Custody from 15 August to 19 August Illegal

The Court noted the difference between the date on which the petitioner was shown as formally arrested and the date from which the police inquiry indicated that he had been in custody. It held in paragraph 5:

“It is also averred in the affidavit of the S.H.O. that the petitioner was shown to be arrested on 19.08.2026, while the report of the Assistant Commissioner of Police also reflects very clearly that he was in the custody of the police from 15.08.2026 itself. In view of the above, this Court unhesitatingly holds that the petitioner was held in illegal custody from 15.08.2026 till he was produced before the Magistrate and sent to judicial remand on 19.08.2026.”

Release Forthwith and Procedure Established by Law

The finding of illegal custody led the Court to direct the petitioner’s release, subject to his not being wanted in another case. The Court also clarified that its order did not prevent a subsequent arrest carried out in accordance with law or relieve the petitioner of his obligation to join the pending investigation. Paragraph 6 states:

“Thus, this Court holds the continued incarceration of the petitioner as an unlawful custody and directs that he be released forthwith from custody, if not wanted in any other case. However, this order does not preclude the State where it finds the necessity to arrest the petitioner to follow the procedure established by law, if he needs to be taken in the custody. Since, there is a criminal case pending against the petitioner, the petitioner would be required to attend the police station and join investigation, as and when required by the police, upon notice being issued to him under the B.N.S.S.”

The reference to “B.N.S.S.” is to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Allahabad High Court Awards ₹50,000 Compensation

The Division Bench directed the State to compensate the petitioner for the illegal detention and provided for recovery from persons found responsible after due inquiry. Paragraph 7 states:

“In addition thereto, by way of compensation, this Court directs the State to pay the petitioner Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for illegal detention to be recovered from such persons that the State finds responsible in this case, after due inquiry.”

Court Appreciates Candour of Police Officers

Before disposing of the petition, the Court acknowledged that the Deputy Commissioner of Police had disclosed the error in his affidavit. It also noted the SHO’s acknowledgment, while observing that the petitioner had nevertheless remained in custody without the protection of the procedure established by law. Paragraph 8 states:

“However, before parting with the case, this Court wishes to record its appreciation for the candour with which Mr. Vivek Chandra Yadav, Deputy Commissioner of Police has disclosed unequivocally in his affidavit without trying to beat around the bush and accepting the error on the part of the police without any ambiguity. The courage of the said officer is appreciated by this Court in accepting that error and the same be placed in his service record. As regards the S.H.O., the S.H.O. has also given a true disclosure and the Court appreciates the acceptance of the error on the part of the S.H.O also. However, on account of their lack of vigilance where malice is missing, but resulted in an individual being incarcerated without being given the protection of the procedure established by law for five days. The Court hopes that the police would take cognizance and carry out corrective measures in future, so that such incidents may not happen, while the requirement of an accused in the investigative process is also fulfilled and his constitutional rights are also taken into cognizance. At page 15 of the personal affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, is the suspension order of the S.H.O. in this case. This Court has observed that it was an unfortunate chain of events that commences from the Independence Day celebrations, where the S.H.O. himself, undoubtedly was involved in ensuring the law and order in his jurisdiction and no malice is evident on his part in deliberately keeping the petitioner in illegal custody for nearly five days. This Court hopes that the same may be taken into consideration by the authorities in the course of his departmental inquiry.”

The Court’s appreciation of the officers’ candour did not alter its finding that the custody was illegal or its direction to pay compensation.

State Directed to Pay and Recover Compensation

The Court left the determination of individual responsibility and apportionment of recovery to the State’s inquiry. It directed prompt payment to the petitioner and recovery within three months. Paragraph 9 states:

“However, the State while fixing responsibility for the unlawful detention of the petitioner, shall be guided by the material on record, which arises from the inquiry to be carried out by it, uninfluenced by the observations in this order, with regard to the apportionment of recovery of the compensation amount. The compensation shall be paid forthwith and recovered as per the disciplinary inquiry conducted by the State within three months from the date of this order.”

Petition Disposed Of

The Division Bench concluded in paragraph 10:

“With the above, the petition stands disposed of.”

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court held that the petitioner had been kept in illegal custody from 15.08.2026 until his production before the Magistrate on 19.08.2026. It directed his release if he was not wanted in another case and awarded ₹50,000 as compensation, while leaving the State to determine responsibility for recovery through due inquiry. The Court also acknowledged the police officers’ disclosure of the error and called for corrective measures. Its decision was confined to the legality of the detention; it did not determine the merits of the criminal case against the petitioner.