Allahabad High Court Orders Immediate Release of Noida Man, Rebukes Police Over ‘Illegal’ Detention

PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court has ordered the immediate release of a man who challenged his detention by the Noida Police, holding that the manner in which he was taken into custody and subsequently shown as arrested raised serious questions about the legality of the police action.

A division bench comprising Justice Atul Sridharan and Justice Achal Sachdeva expressed strong displeasure with the conduct of the police officials during the hearing of a habeas corpus petition filed by Deepak, a resident of Gautam Buddh Nagar.

The bench orally criticised the police for the manner in which the proceedings had been handled and remarked that the condition of policing in the state was “very bad”.

The judges also questioned whether police officers believed they could act without following the prescribed legal procedure.

The case arose from an incident of violence involving two groups on August 23. According to the police records placed before the court, police initially took Deepak and four others into custody under Sections 126, 135 and 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

An FIR was subsequently registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by Shivram Sharma. A key issue before the court was the sequence in which the detention and arrest took place.

According to the petition, Deepak was already in police custody before the FIR was registered. The FIR later listed him as formally arrested in the same case, even as he remained in police custody.

The petition also contended that although several individuals were named in the FIR, Deepak’s name did not figure in it and no specific role had been attributed to him.

Court questions timing of BNSS notice

The bench also examined the circumstances surrounding a notice issued under Section 130 of the BNSS. The petitioner alleged that the Executive Magistrate issued the notice to him on August 24, even though he had already been taken into custody on August 23.

The timing of the notice had previously come under scrutiny during the hearing on October 5. The court had questioned how a notice that was allegedly required before the detention could have been issued after the person had already been taken into custody.

The bench observed that the Assistant Commissioner of Police-I, Gautam Buddh Nagar, would have to explain the sequence of events.

The officer was consequently directed to appear before the court personally and produce all records connected with proceedings under Sections 126, 135 and 170 of the BNSS.

Police questioned over lawyer access and bail documentation

The court also took note of an alleged failure to inform the arrested persons that they could meet a lawyer of their choice during interrogation.

DSP Kamlesh Kant, ACP-II, Central Noida, appeared before the bench in connection with the proceedings.

The judges questioned the police about the manner in which the bail bond procedure had been recorded.

According to the court’s observations, the police records did not show that Deepak had been asked whether he was willing to furnish bail or what amount he was prepared to provide as bail security.

The arrest documents also allegedly did not specify any particular bail amount. The bench expressed dissatisfaction over what it considered inadequate documentation of the procedure and sharply rebuked the officials.

Petition alleges continuous custody despite release order

Deepak’s petition stated that he had remained in police custody from August 23 and that, despite an order for his release on August 24, he was never actually set free.

Instead, the petition alleged, he continued to remain under the physical control of the police and was subsequently shown as arrested in Case Crime No. 370.

The petitioner challenged the legality of the entire sequence, including his initial detention, subsequent arrest and remand. He also pointed to discrepancies in the arrest documentation.

One of the alleged discrepancies concerned the arrest memo. The petition claimed that although the arrest was recorded as having taken place on August 24, the document carried a signature or date corresponding to August 23.

The petitioner argued that an arrest which was unlawful at the outset could not automatically become legal merely because a subsequent remand order had been obtained.

After considering the circumstances surrounding the detention and the procedural irregularities highlighted before it, the High Court allowed the habeas corpus petition and directed that Deepak be released immediately.

हिंदी रिपोर्ट