The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has ordered a comprehensive inquiry into allegations of perjury and the fabrication of official documents by the police force following a habeas corpus petition. The bench, led by Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev, granted the release of the petitioner, Junaid, after determining that the state had failed to establish a lawful basis for his detention and had subsequently attempted to conceal procedural lapses by altering arrest documentation.

In its judgment, the Court took a stern view of the discrepancies between the original arrest memo provided to the petitioner and the version later submitted to the judicial authorities. The bench concluded that the police had engaged in the illegal alteration of records after the initial remand proceedings, specifically after the habeas corpus petition had been brought before the judiciary. This act of falsification was deemed a significant affront to the integrity of judicial proceedings.

The Breach of Judicial Propriety

The petitioner, Junaid, had challenged his detention under FIR Crime No. 650 of 2026, registered under Sections 336 (3), 338, and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Counsel for the petitioner successfully demonstrated that the police had provided an arrest memo at the time of apprehension that contained only perfunctory and legally inadequate grounds for detention. This failure to properly document the reasons for the arrest served as the primary basis for the Court’s decision to allow the writ petition.

During the arguments, a direct conflict emerged when the police filed a counter-affidavit containing a version of the arrest memo that differed substantially from the certified copy presented by the petitioner. The latter had been prepared at the time of the initial remand before the Magistrate . Upon reviewing these conflicting documents, the Court noted blatant additions to the police’s version, specifically in items relating to the grounds for arrest. The Court observed, "Thus, it is clear that the fabrication in the said document has been done by the police on a date after the remand proceedings and perhaps after the habeas corpus petition was filed."

The Court highlighted that the Investigating Officer appeared to have attempted to "perfect" the arrest memo retrospectively to provide a veneer of legality to an otherwise unsupported detention. Furthermore, the Court noted that the police had denied the existence of CCTV surveillance at the police post, despite photographic evidence provided by the petitioner that clearly confirmed the presence of security cameras at the entrance. This contradiction further undermined the credibility of the state’s submission.

Discrepancies in Official Documentation

The Court’s investigation into the fabrication centered on entries 12 and 13 of the arrest memo. While the original document used for the remand proceedings remained silent or vague, the version submitted to the High Court contained detailed allegations regarding the fabrication of valuable security and subsequent fraud. These details were clearly inserted into the documents at a much later stage to retroactively justify the arrest.

Although the Court acknowledged that the deponent of the counter-affidavit may have relied on records already tainted by the Investigating Officer, the severity of the institutional failure remained undeniable. The judges emphasized that the integrity of the judicial process relies entirely on the accuracy and honesty of the documents placed before the court by state agencies. By filing a fabricated document, the police essentially attempted to mislead the High Court, triggering the Court’s decision to initiate a formal probe into these actions.

Judicial Intervention in Custodial Processes

To address the grave nature of the misconduct, the Court invoked its authority to ensure accountability. It directed the Registrar General of the High Court to proceed under Section 379 of the BNSS regarding the offenses mentioned under Section 215 of the same code. This move empowers the Registrar to conduct an inquiry into the fabrication of evidence and perjury committed within the context of a judicial proceeding.

"This Court considers it necessary to direct the Registrar General of this Court to proceed under Section 379 of BNSS for cases mentioned in Section 215 of BNSS, as the offence has been committed in a judicial proceeding," the order stated. Following this inquiry, if it is determined that a prima facie case exists, the Registrar General is mandated to initiate formal legal action against the responsible officers before a court of competent jurisdiction.

The petitioner was ordered to be released immediately, provided he is not required in connection with any other active case. However, the Court clarified that this release does not prevent the state from carrying out a lawful arrest in the future, provided that such an action strictly adheres to the legal precedents set by the Supreme Court. The judgment serves as a sharp reminder to law enforcement agencies that the constitutional protections afforded to citizens cannot be circumvented through the manipulation of arrest protocols or the submission of falsified records. The Court’s reliance on the certified copy of the remand papers proved vital in protecting the petitioner’s rights, effectively curbing what the bench identified as a severe instance of procedural malpractice.