Back
Frees Noida Man, Orally Tells Police to Be Ashamed Over
A petition succeeded spectacularly before the on Wednesday, as a division bench ordered the immediate release of a Noida man who had been held in what the court described as . The bench, comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev, did not mince words in its oral observations, telling the police officers present, “Sharm aani chahiye aapko” (you should be ashamed), and adding that the state of policing in Uttar Pradesh was “a mess” because officers believed they could do anything and get away with it.
The petitioner, Deepak, a resident of Gautam Buddh Nagar, had challenged his detention in connection with a case registered at . The court found that the police had taken him into custody before registering the First Information Report (FIR) and had then shown him as formally arrested while he remained in custody—a sequence that the bench held to be .
A Troubling Sequence of Events
The case arose from an incident of violence between two groups on . According to police records, Deepak and four others were taken into custody at 7:34 PM that evening under . The FIR in Case Crime No. 370 was registered later, at 9:39 PM, based on a written report by one Shiv Ram Sharma.
The undisputed timeline thus showed that the petitioner was already in police custody before the FIR existed. He was then formally arrested in that FIR while still in custody. The petition further alleged that the FIR did not name Deepak or attribute any specific role to him. The High Court had earlier taken exception to this sequence, particularly the timing of a notice issued under . The Executive Magistrate allegedly issued that notice on —a full day after Deepak had been taken into custody.
Court’s Earlier Scrutiny of the Paper Trail
On , the bench had specifically questioned how a notice required before taking custody under Sections 126 and 170 BNSS could be issued after the fact. The court observed: “The question arises, how the notice which should have been issued before the petitioner could have been taken into custody under was issued after they were taken into custody.”
The bench directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP-I) of to appear personally with all documents relating to the proceedings under those sections. The court also noted that the arresting officer had failed to inform any of the arrested persons of their right to meet an advocate of their choice during interrogation—a fundamental safeguard under the BNSS.
Wednesday’s Hearing: Documentation Deficiencies
On Wednesday, DSP Kamlesh Kant (ACP-2, Central Noida) appeared before the bench. The court zeroed in on how the police had documented the procedure. The record, the bench pointed out, did not show that the petitioner had been asked whether he was willing to furnish a specific bail bond amount. Nor did the arrest record mention any specific amount.
The bench expressed strong displeasure with the documentation. The oral remark, “Sharm aani chahiye aapko,” was directed at both the ACP and the Station House Officer. The court then allowed the petition, holding that Deepak’s continued detention was unlawful, and ordered his release forthwith.
Legal Significance: as a Check on Process
This case illustrates the power of to test the integrity of the arrest process itself, independent of the underlying criminal allegations. By examining the paper trail—the timing of the custody, the FIR, the BNSS notice, and the —the court was able to conclude that the petitioner’s detention had no legal foundation.
The petition had also pointed to a discrepancy in the arrest documentation: the recording an arrest on bore signatures and a date of August 23. The petitioner argued that an illegal arrest could not be legitimised merely because a subsequent had been passed. The court’s decision implicitly endorses that view.
The bench’s focus on the notice and the missing amount signals that under the new criminal procedure code will be rigorously enforced. The failure to inform the detainee of the further weakened the police’s position.
Impact on Police Practice and the Justice System
The oral observations from the are a strong reminder to law enforcement agencies that procedural compliance is not optional. Custody taken before registration of an FIR, and the manipulation of arrest records to create a false paper trail, will be closely scrutinised by constitutional courts. The bench’s remark that “the police’s condition in this state is a mess” reflects a broader concern about accountability within the .
For legal practitioners, this case reinforces the utility of petitions in challenging not just the fact of detention but the entire procedural chain leading to it. The court’s willingness to examine the BNSS notice timing and documentation suggests that similar challenges may succeed where procedural shortcuts are evident.
The detailed written order, when released, will provide further clarity on the legal reasoning. However, the oral remarks alone carry significant weight, serving as a judicial rebuke that will likely prompt internal reviews within the police department.
Conclusion
The ’s decision to free Deepak and its pointed oral observations underscore the judiciary’s role in safeguarding against . By holding the police accountable for procedural lapses—custody before FIR, belated BNSS notice, incomplete records, and failure to inform of the —the court has reinforced the principle that the ends do not justify the means. For the legal community, this case is a textbook example of how can be used to vindicate procedural rights, and a cautionary tale for law enforcement agencies that neglect statutory safeguards.
