Allahabad High Court Orders Rs 1.25 Lakh Compensation for Man Illegally Detained by UP Police for Five Days

PRAYAGRAJ: Taking a strong view of a police officer’s failure to follow mandatory legal procedures, the Allahabad High Court has directed the payment of Rs 1.25 lakh in compensation to a Deoria resident who was held in police custody for five days without a lawful arrest.

The court observed that the investigating officer had acted with an unacceptable sense of authority, keeping the man confined without complying with the safeguards prescribed by law.

It also indicated that serious disciplinary consequences should follow if the officer’s misconduct is established in the departmental proceedings.

A division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev issued the directions while deciding a habeas corpus petition filed by Gyanti Devi and two others, who had sought the release of Chandan Rajbhar, a resident of Deoria district.

The compensation was calculated at Rs 25,000 for every day of illegal confinement.

The bench clarified that the payment would not prevent Rajbhar from initiating separate civil proceedings against the police department to seek further damages for the violation of his rights.

The court also said that the government could recover the compensation amount from the officials found responsible for the unlawful detention following an inquiry.

The case originated from an FIR registered on July 18, 2026, at Salempur police station in Deoria under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The complainant, the mother of an 18-year-old woman, had alleged that Rajbhar had eloped with her daughter.

The petitioners, however, presented a different account. They maintained that Rajbhar and the young woman had married at a Durga temple in Siwan, Bihar, before relocating to Pune.

The couple were living there as husband and wife when the police action took place.

According to the petition, a police team accompanied by the woman’s father reached their residence in Pune during the night of August 24-25 and took the couple away.

They were subsequently brought to the concerned police station during the intervening night of August 27 and 28.

Rajbhar alleged that although he had been in police custody since August 28, his arrest was officially recorded only on September 2. He maintained that this period amounted to five days of detention without legal authority.

An inquiry conducted by Circle Officer Rajesh Chaturvedi subsequently provided crucial support to the petitioners’ allegations.

In a report dated October 21, submitted to Deoria Superintendent of Police Abhijeet R Shankar, the officer acknowledged that investigating officer Deep Narayan Yadav had deliberately taken Rajbhar into custody on August 28 and kept him confined until September 2 without formally arresting him.

Following the findings, the Superintendent of Police initiated departmental proceedings against Yadav on October 21.

The High Court took note of the police department’s own inquiry and appreciated the circle officer for placing the actual sequence of events before the court without concealing the facts.

It also acknowledged the action initiated by the Deoria SP against the investigating officer.

The bench observed that the police inquiry had effectively established the petitioner’s allegation of unlawful confinement.

Expressing strong displeasure over the officer’s conduct, the court remarked that keeping a person in custody for five days without following the legally prescribed process reflected an alarming misuse of official power.

The officer, the bench observed, appeared to have treated such an unlawful exercise of authority as an ordinary part of police work.

The judges further indicated that if the departmental inquiry established the charges against the investigating officer, the authorities should consider imposing the most stringent punishment permissible for his deliberate actions.

While allowing the habeas corpus petition, the High Court ordered that Rajbhar be released immediately, provided he was not wanted in any other criminal case.

The ruling reinforces the principle that police powers of detention and arrest are subject to legal safeguards and that violations can attract financial liability as well as departmental action against the officials concerned.