Allahabad High Court Orders ₹5 Lakh Compensation for Illegal Detention, Seeks Action Against UP Police Officer
By Rajesh Pandey
Expressing serious concern over what it described as a growing and troubling pattern, the Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay ₹5 lakh in compensation to a man who was arrested and allegedly held in unlawful custody despite an interim court order protecting him from arrest.
The court also ordered the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the concerned Station House Officer (SHO), citing negligence in the performance of official duties, disregard for a judicial directive, and conduct amounting to indiscipline.
The order was passed by a Division Bench comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Anil Soni.
According to the petition, an FIR had been registered against Soni at Itwa Police Station in Siddharthnagar district under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which relates to allegations of sexual relations obtained through deceptive means, along with other provisions of the BNS and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The complaint was lodged by a woman who claimed that she had been involved in a relationship with him for the past two years.
Earlier, Soni had approached the High Court seeking to quash the FIR. On April 1, a separate Division Bench granted him interim relief and specifically stayed his arrest in connection with the case.
Although the order was uploaded to the High Court’s official website on April 6, police arrested him on April 4.
In the present proceedings, the petitioner argued that his brother had prepared a notarised affidavit on the day of the arrest and attempted to inform the SHO about the High Court’s protective order.
It was also submitted that Soni’s lawyer contacted the SHO through official communication channels to bring the court’s directions to his notice. Despite these efforts, the arrest was carried out.
The state government attempted to justify the police action, but the court was not persuaded.
The Bench observed that the interim order had been passed in the presence of both the state counsel and the lawyer representing the complainant.
Therefore, the court concluded that the concerned authorities were fully aware of the judicial directive.
The judges further noted that even after the habeas corpus petition had been filed and responses were sought from the authorities, the petitioner was not immediately released from custody.
This, the court observed, raised serious concerns regarding compliance with judicial orders.
Taking strong exception to the circumstances of the case, the Bench remarked that such incidents reflect an alarming trend that appears to be gaining ground.
The court observed that either government lawyers fail to communicate court orders to police officials, resulting in non-compliance, or police authorities deliberately disregard judicial directions and act with mala fide intent.
In its observations, the court stated that this recurring pattern undermines the authority of the judiciary and raises concerns about respect for the rule of law.
The judges emphasized that court orders must be implemented faithfully and without delay by all authorities concerned.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 13. The court directed the Superintendent of Police, Siddharthnagar, to submit a compliance affidavit confirming payment of the compensation amount to the petitioner and providing details of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the SHO.
The High Court also issued a clear warning that if these directions are not complied with, the Superintendent of Police, Siddharthnagar, will be required to appear in person before the court.
Through its order dated May 29, the Bench underscored the importance of accountability and adherence to judicial directives by law enforcement agencies.
