Allahabad HC Grants ₹25000 Per Day Compensation for Illegal Detention of Disabled Advocate

Chander Pal Singh and another Vs State of U.P. and 5 others (Allahabad High Court)

Allahabad HC Enforces Strict Liability on State; Awards ₹25,000 per day Compensation to Handicapped Advocate Illegally Detained by Police

This judgment from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 214 of 2026) stands as a profound legal establishment of individual freedom against the arbitrary and mechanical exercise of state power. By addressing the systemic misuse of preventive detention laws, the Court reinforces the supremacy of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and establishes rigorous financial and administrative accountability for state actors. Here is a deep, structured legal analysis of the judgment that represents a landmark judicial intervention against the arbitrary exercise of preventive detention powers by the executive under the guise of maintaining public peace and security.

The judgment ensures that preventive clauses in the new BNSS cannot be twisted into tools of administrative tyranny. It serves as a stern reminder to the executive branch that the courts will not remain “mute spectators” while a citizen’s basic right to move freely is compromised.

1. Core Legal Issue:

The systemic misuse of preventive detention provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) by police and Executive Magistrates, specifically through the imposition of onerous financial sureties to keep the peace.

2. Factual Matrix & The State’s Infringement

The case exposes a blatant misuse of the “sovereign machinery of security” to harass a citizen over a minor civic grievance.

The Spark: A neighborhood dispute wherein a complaint was made alleging that Petitioner No. 1 obstructed a passage by installing a gate. An NCR was registered under Sections 115(2) and 351 of the B.N.S..

The State Overreach: Instead of pursuing standard legal routes, the Teelamodh Police (Ghaziabad) forcibly picked up Petitioner No. 1 at 11:00 AM on February 22, 2026. He was detained for more than 24 hours without being produced before a Judicial Magistrate, in flagrant violation of constitutional mandates.

The Bureaucratic Trap: He was produced before the Assistant Commissioner of Police (acting as an Executive Magistrate) and challaned under Sections 170, 126, and 135 of the BNSS. Despite furnishing a peace bond of ₹50,000, he was illegally sent to jail anyway.

Judicial Rescue: It was only after the High Court intervened orally via the Additional Government Advocate (AGA) that the petitioner was released on February 25, 2026. Subsequently, the Executive Magistrate issued a fresh notice under Sections 126 and 135 of the BNSS to maliciously pressure the petitioner to withdraw his Habeas Corpus petition.

3. Jurisprudential Analysis: “The Sovereign of Security” vs. Personal Freedom

This judgment serves as a profound critique of how law enforcement transforms preventive, non-punitive legal provisions into tools of punitive incarceration. Reinforcing the Core of Article 21 by binding police officers and executive magistrates to stringent service rules and immediate financial penalties, the Allahabad High Court transforms Article 21 from an abstract constitutional promise into a highly protected practical reality.

4. The Separation of Preventive Action and Incarceration

The High Court drew heavily on its own jurisprudence, citing Amit Jani Vs. State of U.P. (2020) and Shiv Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. (2021). The core legal principle established is that preventive actions under Chapter IX of the BNSS (or Chapter VIII of the old Cr.P.C.) are purely preventative, not punitive.

1. An Executive Magistrate cannot issue a detention order as a matter of course.

2. The sine qua non(essential condition) for detention under these preventive sections is a strict default/failure to execute a peace bond. Jailing a citizen who is willing to sign a bond violates Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

5. Striking Down “Cyclostyled” and Mechanical Justice

The court lambasted the executive practice of issuing notices on printed, fill-in-the-blank proformas. Relying on Apex Court rulings like Madhu Limaye vs. SDM , the Court reiterated that orders under these chapters are judicial orders requiring the application of a “judicial mind”. A mechanical fill-in-the-blank notice fails the basic test of statutory procedural fairness.  The Court deprecates the practice of issuing notices or “challans” on printed proformas where blanks are merely filled in. It establishes that freedom cannot be curtailed by routine, algorithmic administrative habits; instead, magistrates must issue custom, written, and “speaking orders” that reflect an active application of a judicial mind.

6. Dismantling the Extortionate Surety System

The Court called out a deeply entrenched systemic malice: Executive Magistrates arbitrarily fixing massive financial surety amounts (often requiring local property holders) for simple peace-keeping bonds, turning a administrative mechanism into an impossible financial hurdle for the poor and marginalized. J. Siddharth explicitly noted that Section 170 of the BNSS provides no statutory backing for demanding monetary sureties upon preventive arrest.

6.1. Dismantling the Mechanical Architecture of Preventive Detention

Historically, preventive provisions—intended to prevent crime rather than punish it—have been susceptible to administrative overreach. The Court strikes directly at the institutionalized methods used by police and executive magistrates to dilute personal freedom:

6.2. Separation of Powers and Intent: The judgment clarifies that Sections 126 and 135 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) are distinct from immediate penal custody. Magistrates cannot issue joint or combined orders for a preliminary notice and an interim bond to mechanically bypass an individual’s right to show cause.

7  Setting Strict Procedural Boundaries on the State

The judgment effectively shifts the burden of procedural strictness back onto the state, establishing that when an individual’s liberty is at stake, the statutory procedure must be followed perfectly or not at all.

7.1. The Signature Bond Paradigm: To prevent the weaponization of high bail amounts—which effectively keeps underprivileged citizens jailed indefinitely—the Court mandates that after a preventive arrest, an individual must be released upon executing a personal signature bond not exceeding ₹20,000, without requiring any monetary deposit or sureties.

7.2. Strict Adherence to the 24-Hour Rule: The Court reaffirms that preventive arrest under Section 170 BNSS explicitly forbids custody beyond 24 hours without specific judicial authorization.

7.3. Mandatory Audio-Visual Recording: In an innovative step toward transparency, if a detained person refuses to sign a personal bond, the state must record this refusal via written and audio-visual modes. This prevents police authorities from fabricating non-compliance to justify extended illegal detentions.

8. Landmark Directives & Interim Protections (The New Policy)

To curb the widespread “highly irresponsible manner” in which police and Magistrates operate, the High Court established an interim legal framework governing all preventive detentions across Uttar Pradesh until a formal state policy is structured under the BNSS:

9. Public Law Remedy, Accountability, and Damages

The judgment transitions from merely protecting freedom to enforcing strict financial and disciplinary accountability on the “sovereign actors”.

9.1.  Principle of Strict Liability & Exemplary Damages

Invoking the landmark Supreme Court rulings in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa , the High Court emphasized that monetary compensation in public law is not a private tort action. It is an independent public law remedy based on strict liability aimed at penalizing the state for failing its constitutional duty to protect the fundamental right to life and liberty.

9.2. Specific Punitive Directives in this Case The Court determined that Petitioner No. 1 was completely unlawfully jailed for 3 days (March 22, 2026, to March 25, 2026).

• Monetary Award: The Court awarded ₹75,000 (calculated at a strict rate of ₹25,000 per day of illegal detention) to be paid by the State Government within six weeks.
• Deduction from Salaries: To ensure the state treasury does not absorb the cost of bureaucratic malice, the Court ordered the State to recover this money directly from the salaries of the responsible officers—the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Shalimar Garden) and/or the SHO of Police Station Teelamodh—following a swift 3-month disciplinary inquiry.
• Disciplinary Action: Formal disciplinary proceedings for dereliction of duty were mandated against the errant officers under their respective service rules.

10. Conclusion & Judicial Oversight

The judgment is a masterclass in judicial pushback against administrative overreach. Recognizing that past state policies (like the circular dated March 23, 2021) were being openly ignored by police forces, the Court implemented a strict supervisory timeline:

1. The Registrar (Compliance) was ordered to immediately send this judgment to the Director General of Police (DGP), U.P., to issue a binding circular across all districts.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, is personally tasked with submitting a compliance report to the High Court on or before September 14, 2026.

3. Failure to comply requires the personal, physical presence of the Police Commissioner before the Court.

By linking illegal detention directly to the personal finances and career records of police officers and magistrates, this judgment shifts the balance of power back toward individual liberty and away from an unchecked “sovereign of security”.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

1. Heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta and Sri Jitendra Rana, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Mohd. Shoeb Khan, learned AGA-Ist for State-respondents and perused the pleadings of the parties and annexures in support thereof.

2. This habeas corpus writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

a. Issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus and/or any other similar writ, order and direction of like nature, directing the respondents to produce the petitioner no.1 before this Hon’ble Court and release the corpus/ petitioner no.1 from their illegal detention/arrest/custody to set at liberty.

b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus and/or any other similar writ, order and directing the Police of Police Station Teelamodh, District Commissionerate Ghaziabad, not to illegally harass the Petitioner no. 1 and his family members.

c. Issue any other Writ, Order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the present case.

d. To may award the compensation to the petitioner for the illegal detention/arrest/harassment, and also cost of expenses for present Writ petition.

3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner no.1-corpus has been illegally detained by police of Police Station Teelamodh by Chowki In-charge of aforesaid police station, namely, Rajendra Singh on 22.2.2026 around 11:00 a.m.; detained illegally for more than 24 hours and produced before Magistrate on 23.2.2026 at 4:00 p.m.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner no.1 is a practicing Advocate of this Court and petitioner no.2 is his wife. Both are also handicapped. On 13.2.2026 petitioner no.1 had gone to his native village, Jawli, for attending the marriage of his niece scheduled on 20.2.2026. Unfortunately, on 17.02.2026 brother-in-law of petitioner no.1 expired and his family was shocked. The petitioner no.1 got his ticket reserved by train for returning to Prayagraj in 22.2.2026, but on the same day at 11:00 a.m. he was forcibly taken away by the police of Police Station Teelamodh. He was not produced before any Magistrate within 24 hours, which is violation of law. He was only produced before Assistant Commissioner of Police, Salimar Garden, District Ghaziabad and he was sent to jail under Section 151 Cr.P.C. without permitting him to execute bond for keeping peace. The petitioner no.1 was lodged in a cell at Police Station Teelamodh for whole day alongwith his nephew and it was only on 23.2.2026 that they furnished bond of Rs.50,000/- under Sections 170, 126 and 135 B.N.S.S. Despite execution of bail bonds, petitioner no.1 alongwith his nephew were sent to jail. After the filing of the habeas corpus writ petition and on the oral direction of this Hon’ble Court to the learned A.G.A. to seek instructions, petitioner No. 1 was released from jail on 25.02.2026 at 8:30 a.m., while his nephew was released on the next day, i.e., 26.02.2026, in the morning.

5. Petitioner no.1 made complaints to the Police Commissioner, Commissionerate Ghaziabad alongwith the District Magistrate and other authorities. The petitioner no.1 was again issued a notice dated 25.03.2026 under Sections 126 and 135 of the B.N.S.S. by the Executive Magistrate, Sahibabad, Commissionerate Ghaziabad, with regard to the incident dated 03.03.2026, in order to exert pressure upon him to withdraw the present habeas corpus writ petition. The petitioner no.1 belongs to SC/ST community and he was subjected to physical and mental harassment alongwith his nephew in most illegal manner by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Salimar Garden, District Commissionerate, Ghaziabad and Station House Officer, Police Station Teelamodh, District Commissionerate, Ghaziabad.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of S.H.O., Police Station Teelamodh, wherein it has been mentioned in paragraph no.4 that an N.C.R. was registered against petitioner no.1. Thereafter he was challaned under Sections 170, 126 and 135 B.N.S.S. and hence he was produced before the competent court on 23.2.2026. The petitioner no.1 did not moved any bail application and hence he was sent to the jail. It was not brought to his notice that petitioner no.1 is handicapped. He was challaned in accordance with law. On 22.02.2026, one Ravi made a complaint against the petitioner no.1 alleging that he had obstructed the passage by installing a gate. On the basis of the said complaint, NCR No. 12 of 2026 was registered under Sections 115(2) and 351 of the B.N.S. Consequently, the petitioner no.1 was challaned on 23.02.2026 under Sections 170, 126 and 135 of the B.N.S.S. When the petitioner no.1 was arrested, an arrest memo was prepared. The Executive Magistrate, Shahibabad, has issued notice under Section 126, 135 B.N.S. on the basis of report of Inspector Incharge of Police Station concerned.

7. This Court passed the order dated 27.4.2026 directing the Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Ghazizbad, to submit the details of illegally detained persons by his orders. In the compliance of aforesaid order, affidavit of compliance has been filed by Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, stating that no person is now under detention. However his report shows that earlier persons were arrested and detained in jail for number of days. After this Court’s order, they were released from jail to show good work. It has also been stated in the compliance affidavit that Commissioner has ordered inquiry through Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime), Commissionerate Ghaziabad, by his order dated 29.4.2026 as to why petitioner no.1 was detained in police station for more than 24 hours. The inquiry report has been brought on record as Annexure No.5 to the affidavit of compliance. From the aforesaid inquiry report, we do not find any justification for keeping the petitioner in jail despite the execution of the bail bond.

8. Sri Anoop Trivedi, Additional Advocate General has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and also placed before this Court the instructions received from the Director General of Police, U.P. which is as follows:-

9. The above instructions are nothing but reference to wrong statutory provision of Chapter XXXV of B.N.S.S. by Director General of Police, not noticed by learned Additional Advocate General of U.P., which are of no help in deciding this petition. The provisions relate to bond furnished after court order of release from jail on furnishing bond and sureties by an under trial or convicted accused directed to be enlarged on bail during pendency of appeal. The relevant provision of Sections 126/135 B.N.S.S. are part of Chapter (IX) and Section 170 B.N.S.S. is part of Chapter XII of B.N.S.S. which are quoted herein below for ready reference:-

“126. Security for keeping peace in other cases.

(1)When an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond or bail bond for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.

(2) Proceedings under this section may be taken before any Executive Magistrate when either the place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended is within his local jurisdiction or there is within such jurisdiction a person who is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act as aforesaid beyond such jurisdiction.

135. Inquiry as to truth of information.

(1)When an order under section 130 has been read or explained under section 131 to a person present in Court, or when any person appears or is brought before a Magistrate in compliance with, or in execution of, a summons or warrant, issued under section 132, the Magistrate shall proceed to inquire into the truth of the information upon which action has been taken, and to take such further evidence as may appear necessary.  (2)Such inquiry shall be made, as nearly as may be practicable, in the manner hereinafter prescribed for conducting trial and recording evidence in summons-cases.(3)After the commencement, and before the completion, of the inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate, if he considers that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of a breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquillity or the commission of any offence or for the public safety, may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct the person in respect of whom the order under section 130 has been made to execute a bond or bail bond, for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour until the conclusion of the inquiry, and may detain him in custody until such bond or bail bond is executed or, in default of execution, until the inquiry is concluded: Provided that-(a) no person against whom proceedings are not being taken under section 127, section 128, or section 129 shall be directed to execute a bond or bail bond for maintaining good behaviour;(b) the conditions of such bond, whether as to the amount thereof or as to the provision of sureties or the number thereof or the pecuniary extent of their liability, shall not be more onerous than those specified in the order under section 130.(4)For the purposes of this section the fact that a person is a habitual offender or is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community may be proved by evidence of general repute or otherwise.  (5)Where two or more persons have been associated together in the matter under inquiry, they may be dealt with in the same or separate inquiries as the Magistrate shall think just.(6)The inquiry under this section shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of its commencement, and if such inquiry is not so completed, the proceedings under this Chapter shall, on the expiry of the said period, stand terminated unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs: Provided that where any person has been kept in detention pending such inquiry, the proceeding against that person, unless terminated earlier, shall stand terminated on the expiry of a period of six months of such detention.  (7)Where any direction is made under sub-section (6) permitting the continuance of proceedings, the Sessions Judge may, on an application made to him by the aggrieved party, vacate such direction if he is satisfied that it was not based on any special reason or was perverse.

170. Arrest to prevent commission of cognizable offences.

(1)A police officer knowing of a design to commit any cognizable offence may arrest, without orders from a Magistrate and without a warrant, the person so designing, if it appears to such officer that the commission of the offence cannot be otherwise prevented.(2)No person arrested under subsection (1) shall be detained in custody for a period exceeding twenty-four hours from the time of his arrest unless his further detention is required or authorised under any other provisions of this Sanhita or of any other law for the time being in force.  (3)No person arrested under sub-section (1) shall be detained in custody for a period exceeding twenty-four hours from the time of his arrest unless his further detention is required or authorised under any other provisions of this Sanhita or of any other law for the time being in force.”

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 6.3.2020 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Amit Jani Vs. State of U.P. and others, Hebeas Corpus Writ Petition No.1045 of 2019 and another judgment dated 11.6.2021 of coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Verma and another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.16386 of 2020.

11. We find that that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Amit Jani (Supra) has considered the issue involved in this writ petition with reference to Sections 107, 116, 151 Cr.P.C. relating to “security” for keeping peace and for good behaviour. This Court after considering the rival submissions has held as under:-

“9. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions manifests that the executive magistrate on receipt of information that any person is likely to commit a breach of peace, public tranquillity, such person shall be put to notice as to why he be not directed to execute a bond with or without sureties. The Executive Magistrate is not obliged to issue a notice on mere ipse dixit. The object of proceedings under Chapter-VIII is of prevention of crime, disturbance of public tranquillity and breach of peace. The provisions are preventive in nature based on apprehended danger.

10. Section 151 is contained under Chapter-XI, which deals about the “preventive action of police”

“151. Arrest to prevent the commission of cognizable offences.

(1) A police officer knowing of a design to commit any cognizable offence may arrest, without orders from a Magistrate and without a warrant, the person so designing, if it appears to such officer that the commission of the offence cannot be otherwise prevented.

(2) No person arrested under sub- section (1) shall be detained in custody for a period exceeding twenty- four hours from the time of his arrest unless his further detention is required or authorised under any other provisions of this Code or of any other law for the time being in force.”

Sub-section (2) of Section 151 clearly indicates that no person shall be detained in custody for a period exceeding 24 hours unless his further detention is required or authorised under the Code or any other law.

11. It is well settled that when an act is to be done in a particular manner, then the act is to be performed only in the manner provided under the statute or not at all and all other modes are necessarily forbidden. Thus, the phraseology employed in Section 107 ” in the manner hereinafter provided” cannot be ignored, on the contrary conveys the intent of the legislature that while exercising the powers under Section 107 of the Code the Executive Magistrate shall adhere to the procedure laid down in Chapter- VIII of the Code.

12. The powers under Section-107, 108 and 109 of the Code to issue a show cause is to be exercised according to the defined procedure. Section 116 of the Code contemplates an inquiry to ascertain the veracity of the information, which led to the issuance of a show cause under Section 107. Vide sub-section (3) of Section 116, power is conferred on the magistrate for passing orders relating to immediate measures in case of breach of peace, disturbance, public tranquillity or commission of any offence or public safety calling upon the persons to keep peace or maintain good behaviour until conclusion of the inquiry. Power is also conferred on the Magistrate to detain the person concerned in custody until such bond is executed or in default of execution, until the inquiry is concluded.

13. The Apex Court in Madhu Limaye & others vs. S.D.M, (1970) 3 SCC 746 while upholding the Constitutional validity of Chapter-VIII of the Code held that the orders made under this Chapter are judicial orders unlike the detention order under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which is administrative in nature. The order of detention under Chapter – VIII can be passed only in default of execution of bond and not otherwise . Thus, the sine qua non for detention under Chapter VIII of the Code is failure to execute a bond.

14. We have already set forth undisputed factual matrix. The petitioner came to be arrested on 9.11.2019 at 2:00 A.M, from his house. No reasons for detention were communicated. The alleged reason, i.e, the petitioner was a potential threat in view of pending Ayodhya Verdict surfaced for the first time on 11.11.2019 by way of show cause notice dated 9.11.2019, which is as under:

15. A perusal of the aforesaid manifests that the notice is dated 9.11.2019 calling upon the petitioner to furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and 2 sureties of the like amount for maintenance / ensuring of peace and tranquillity for a period of 6 months. The date fixed in the notice was 22.11.2019, i.e, the petitioner had time till 22.11.2019 to comply the show cause. Respondent no.5 has not placed any material, but for Annexure-CA-2 (show cause) that the circumstances were so grave and imminent that on the date of issuance of notice itself, immediate detention of the petitioner was warranted. On the contrary, the notice/ challan under Section 107/116 /151 CrPC (Annex.-CA-II) is on a printed proforma, on which name and address of the petitioner, name of PS, the date of report, the alleged ground, i.e, for maintaining communal harmony and the date fixed are only hand written, leaving the remaining recitals to be on a printed format including the amount of personal bond to be furnished by the petitioner. The order sheet of 9.11.2019 is also on a printed format. It appears that respondent no.5 mechanically issued notice / challan without any application of mind. The passing of orders in printed proforma/cyclostyled formats have been deprecated by various High Courts including this court as they do not reflect application of mind. Reference is made to the following judgments:-

1. 2000 ILR (Kar) 4773, Vijaya Bank Vs. State.

2. 2010(9) ADJ 594, Abdul Rasheed Vs. State of U.P. & another.

3. 2009 (67) ACC 532, Ankit Vs. State of U.P. & another.

4. 2010 (3) ADJ 622, Saurabh Dewana Vs. State of U.P.

16. The authority was statutorily obliged to reduce its reasons in writing, warranting an immediate action, no such reasons were ascribed. The petitioner submitted his personal bonds and sureties before Respondent no.5 on 11.11.2019, which was sought to be controverted by alleging that it was submitted on 13.11.2019. The respondent no.5 was well within his limits to verify sureties. But he had no authority to continue the detention of the petitioner once he had submitted his personal bonds on 11.11.2019. The statutory mandate of Section 116 (3) is that once the person concerned tenders his personal bond in compliance to order passed under Section 111, he has to be released. The petitioner was released only on 16.11.2019, when the matter was taken up in this Court. Thus the detention of the petitioner from 11.11.2019 to 16.11.2019 is in brazen defiance of the statutory mandate of sub-section (3) of Section 116 Sub-section (2) of Section 151 of the Code, and that of Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

17. The Respondent no.5 is a senior officer exercising quasi judicial powers.

18. Law abhors illegal detention. The Courts cannot be a mute spectator to an illegal detention in flagrant violation of basic constitutional norms. The Courts in such eventualities are constitutionally obliged to rise to the occasion to award such compensation, as it deems fit. The Apex Court in D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416, has held that the constitutional courts in an appropriate case involving illegal detention, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32/226 of the Constitution of India, can award compensation.

19. The instant case is one such illustration. We, on available material including the apology of respondent no.5, are of the view that the illegal detention of the petitioner from 11.11.2019 to 16.11.2019 was perpetuated by respondent no.5 / City Magistrate, NOIDA, Sector 19, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

20. We deem appropriate to direct the State Government to recover Rs.25000/- from the salary of respondent no.5/ Mr. Shailendra Kumar Mishra (City Magistrate, NOIDA, Sector 19, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar) and pay the same to the petitioner forthwith as compensation for illegal detention.”

12. Another judgment of Shiv Kumar Verma and another (Supra) of co-ordinate Bench has considered the policy of State Government dated 23.3.2021 framed for guiding District Magistrates, Executive and Special Magistrate in cases of maintenance of public peace, public tranguility and public order, which is as follows:-

“17. The policy of the State Government dated 23.3.2021 appended as Annexure 1 to the aforesaid affidavit of compliance dated 23.3.2021 is reproduced below:-

 

13. In paragraph 21 to 25, this court in the case of Shiv Kumar Verma (Supra) considered the payment of monetary compensation to the person whose right to liberty is violated by the public servants as follows:-

“21. Once it is found by the competent authority that a complainant is entitled for compensation for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their duties in accordance with law, then payment of the amount may be made to the complainant from the public fund immediately but it may be recovered from those who are found responsible for such unparadonable behaviour. This legal position is reflected from the law laid down by the Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority’s case (supra). In the said case it was further observed by the Apex Court that the Administrative law of accountability of public authorities or their arbitrary and even ultra vires actions has taken many strides and it is now accepted both by this Court and English Courts that State is liable to compensate for loss or injury suffered by a citizen due to arbitrary action of its employees.

22. The legal principles as enumerated in foregoing paragraphs Nos. 18, 19, 20 & 21 also finds support of the law laid down by Hon’ble Courts in the case of Lucknow Development Authority (supra); Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat (1994) 4 SCC 1; N. Nagendra Rao & Co. Vs. State of A.P. (1994) 6 SCC 205; State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Kanchanmala Vijaysing Shirke and others (1995) 5 SCC 659; Chief Conservator of Forests and another (1996) 2 SCC 293; S.P. Goel vs Collector Of Stamps, Delhi (1996) 1 SCC 573; Common Cause A. Registered Society Vs. Union of India JT 1999 (5) SC 237: AIR 1999 SC 2979; Shiv Sagar Tiwari Vs. Union of India and others (1996) 6 SCC 558; Chairman, Railway Board and others Vs. Chandrima Das (Mrs.) and others (2000) 2 SCC 465; State of A.P. Vs. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy and others (2000) 5 SCC 712; Research Foundation for Science (10) Vs. Union of India (2005) 13 SCC 659; M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India and Others (2006) 3 SCC 399; Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others (2008) 9 SCC 527; Action Committee, Unaided Private Schools and others Vs. Director of Education, Delhi and others (2009) 10 SCC; Delhi Jal Board Vs. National Campaign for Dignity and Rights of Sewerage and Allied Workers and others (2011) 8 SCC 568; Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi Vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association and others (2011) 14 SCC 481.

Action by the State Government

23. We record our appreciation for the State Government to take the aforequoted policy decision dated 23.03.2021 for payment of compensation of Rs.25,000/- for illegal detention of any citizen by any Officer of the State Government and initiation of disciplinary proceedings against such officer. Since the State Government itself has taken a policy decision and has paid compensation to the petitioners herein, therefore, no further direction for payment of compensation is required to be issued in the present writ petition.

24. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :-

(i) The State Government shall ensure that the provisions of the Cr.P.C. as referred in the policy decision dated 23.03.2021 are strictly followed/observed by all the concerned officers.

(ii) The State Government shall further ensure that paragraph 12 of the policy decision dated 23.03.2021 is strictly implemented, which at the cost of repetition is reproduced below:

(iii) The State Government shall publish Para 12 of its Policy decision dated 23.03.2021 in all largely circulated National Level Newspaper having circulation in the State of Uttar Pradesh and shall also display it on display board at prominent places within public view, in all blocks, Tehsil Headquarters, Police Stations and in campus of District Collectorate in the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh.

(iv) Copy of this order shall be sent by the State Government to all District level and Tehsil level Bar Associations in the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh.

25. Let a copy of this order be sent by the Registrar General of this Court to the Chief Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Additional Chief Secretary, Home, for strict compliance.”

14. The Apex Court in the case of Daudayal Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2026 INSC 599, held in paragraph no. 11.4 that compensation for illegal detention in the nature of “exemplary damages” can be granted as follow”-

“11.4 Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746,

This case was instituted by an aggrieved mother whose son was taken into police custody wherein he met the most unfortunate off- ends. The letter addressed to this Court was treated as a writ petition. Since it was undisputed that the police authorities had taken him into custody and also that he was eventually found pretty much in the state of being a discarded piece of trash on the railway track, the liability of the State of Orissa was obvious. The total amount awarded was Rs.1,50,000/-. In doing so, the Court speaking through J.S. Verma J. (as he then was) acknowledged the wide powers under Article 32 and also made reference to Article 9(5) of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966. Dr. A.S. Anand (as he then was) in the said case observed as under:

“34. The public law proceedings serve a different purpose than the private law proceedings. The relief of monetary compensation, as exemplary damages, in proceedings under Article 32 by this Court or under Article 226 by the High Courts, for established infringement of the indefeasible right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law and is based on the strict liability for contravention of the guaranteed basic and indefeasible rights of the citizen. The purpose of public law is not only to civilize public power but also to assure the citizen that they live under a legal system which aims to protect their interests and preserve their rights. Therefore, when the court moulds the relief by granting “compensation” in proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights, it does so under the public law by way of penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which has failed in its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen. The payment of compensation in such cases is not to be understood, as it is generally understood in a civil action for damages under the private law but in the broader sense of providing relief by an order of making ‘monetary amends’ under the public law for the wrong done due to breach of public duty, of not protecting the fundamental rights of the citizen. The compensation is in the nature of ‘exemplary damages’awarded against the wrongdoer for the breach of its public law duty and is independent of the rights available to the aggrieved party to claim compensation under the private law in an action based on tort, through a suit instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction or/and prosecute the offender under the penal law.”

15. The provisions of Sections 126 and135 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) vest discretion in the Magistrate to get bond and bail bond executed under Chapter IX B.N.S.S. Section 170 B.N.S.S. does not provides for execution of any bond or furnishing any surety. But we find that bond of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties of like amount, are being illegaly insisted by Magistrates whenever such detention/ arrest of a person is made, on the allegation of commission of breach of peace and not maintaining good behaviour.

16. We find that there exists a State Government policy decision dated 23.03.2021. Despite the said policy decision, the police officials of the State and the Magistrates are acting in a highly irresponsible manner by sending persons brought before them, only to prevent breach of peace, to jail for days together. The amount of compensation of ₹ 25,000/- for such breach was fixed in the year 2021 by the State Government and it  deserves to be enhanced by the State Government by framing a new policy after the coming into force of the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Until a new policy is brought into force by the State Government and keeping in view flagrant violation of right to liberty of the illegally detained and jailed persons, we direct as follows:-

(i) We hereby direct that after preventive detention of any person under the provisions of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) or Cr.P.C., he shall be required to furnish a personal bond (signature bond without deposit of any money) binding him to keep peace and maintain good behaviour. The amount of such bond shall not exceed ₹ 20,000/- and no surety shall be required to be furnished. In case amount of bond is increased, reasons for the same shall be given by the Magistrate in writing. On the date of detention, if bond is executed by the person detained, he shall be set free.

(ii) In case accused refuses to execute the personal bond for keeping peace on being produced before the Magistrate/ Commissioner of Police on the same day, his refusal shall be recorded by means of written and audio-visual mode before sending him to jail. He shall be produced before the Magistrate on the date stated by him at the time of his refusal to furnish personal bond to enable him to produce personal bond on the day chosen by him.

(iii) Further, in cases where a person is detained for more than 24 hours in violation of this order, without any plausible reason, an amount of ₹25,000/- per day shall be payable to the detained person as compensation by the State Government. The said amount shall be recovered by deduction from the salary of the concerned Magistrate and/or police officer, or both, as the case may be, if they are found responsible for the default, after conducting disciplinary proceedings against them and fixing their liability.

(iv). The Magistrate and/or police official prima facie found responsible for the lapse, or both, shall be subjected to disciplinary proceedings for dereliction of duty as per their relevant service Rules.

17. Now coming to the facts of this case, it is clear that petitioner no.1 was illegally detained in jail from 22.3.2026 to 25.3.2026 and was released after filing of this petition on oral direction of this Court. Hence he is held entitled to compensation of Rs.75,000/- at the rate Rs.25,000/-per day of illegal detention. It shall be paid to petitioner no.1 within six weeks by the State Government. Thereafter the amount shall be recovered by the State Government from Assistant Commissioner of Police, Shalimar Garden, Ghaziabad and/or from S.H.O., Police Station Teelamodh, Ghaziabad, whosoever is found at fault or both, proportionally after conducting disciplinary inquiry against both of them within three months.

18. The Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Ghaziabad, shall file the compliance report of this order to this Court on or before 14.9.2026.

19. List this case on 14.9.2026.

20. In case of failure he shall remain present before this Court on the next date fixed.

21. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to send a copy of this order to Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, within a week for necessary compliance by issuing a circular to all the police heads in the Police Commissionerates or the Districts.

22. He shall also file an affidavit of compliance in this regard by the next date fixed.