The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has ordered the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay ₹1.25 lakh in compensation to Chandan Rajbhar, finding he was kept in illegal police custody for five days. A division bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev underscored that such blatant disregard for the rule of law by state officials mandates severe consequences, signaling a firm stance against the misuse of police authority. The ruling marks a significant judicial intervention in cases involving the deprivation of personal liberty by law enforcement agencies without adhering to the constitutionally mandated procedures.

The matter arose from a habeas corpus petition filed by the wife of the petitioner, seeking his release from what she alleged was an unlawful, clandestine detention at the Salempur Police Station in Deoria district. According to the petition, the couple had eloped and moved to Pune, where they were living as a married couple. Their lives were interrupted when police officers from Deoria, allegedly accompanied by the father of the woman, apprehended the couple at their residence in Pune and forcibly brought them back to the police station in Uttar Pradesh.

Investigating Officer’s Unlawful Conduct Exposed

The court’s scrutiny revealed that the Investigating Officer, Deep Narayan Yadav, had detained Rajbhar on August 28, 2026, but failed to record the arrest until September 2, 2026. This five-day window of confinement lacked any legal authorization, as the accused was not produced before a magistrate within the mandated time frame, nor were the standard procedural safeguards observed during his apprehension and subsequent incarceration.

Upon the intervention of the High Court, a detailed inquiry report was conducted by the Circle Officer, Rajesh Chaturvedi. The report corroborated the petitioner's claims, confirming that the investigating officer had deliberately kept the individual in custody without documenting his arrest. The findings highlighted not only a procedural lapse but an active effort to circumvent the law, which the court described as a gross dereliction of duty.

The bench was highly critical of the officer's behavior, noting that the disregard for basic legal processes indicated a dangerous mindset within the local police administration. The court observed: "The manner in which the I.O. has demonstrated his arrogance of authority, by detaining petitioner No.2 for full five days without even thinking twice and without following the procedure established by law , makes it appear that he considered it business as usual."

Judicial Scrutiny of Police Custody Records

During the proceedings, the state government, represented by the Superintendent of Police, Abhijeet R. Shankar, took a transparent approach. Following the initial orders of the court, which had requested CCTV footage from the police station to verify the detention period, the police department submitted an inquiry report acknowledging the illegality. The bench commended the Superintendent of Police and the Circle Officer for their honesty in disclosing the true facts, directing that this appreciation be recorded in their respective service records.

While the court acknowledged this candor, it maintained a stern approach regarding the actions of the investigating officer. Beyond the compensation order, the bench noted that the state has already initiated departmental proceedings. The court expressed a clear expectation that should the officer be found guilty of the charges, he should face the most stringent penalties available under the law to serve as a deterrent against similar abuse of power in the future.

Regarding the financial reparation for the victim, the court justified the sum based on the duration of the unlawful confinement. "This Court is of the opinion that, for the period of five days undergone by petitioner No.2 in custody without adherence to the procedure established by law , compensation at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per day is granted, which amounts to Rs.1,25,000/-," the judges held. They further clarified that this award would not prevent the victim from seeking additional damages through civil tort actions if he chooses to pursue further litigation.

Establishing Accountability for Constitutional Violations

The court’s final order emphasized that the burden of compensation should not rest solely on the public exchequer. It directed that the state government may, upon the conclusion of the formal inquiry, recover the paid amount directly from the individuals found responsible for the illegal detention. This directive aims to personalize accountability within the police force, ensuring that officers are held financially and professionally responsible for their actions when they deviate from legal mandates.

Importantly, the bench made a clear distinction between the illegal detention incident and the merits of the criminal charges pending against the petitioner. It noted that the observations made regarding the police conduct in this case should not influence the ongoing criminal trial in the court of first instance. The criminal proceedings are to be decided strictly on the evidence presented to the trial court, ensuring that the integrity of the pending case remains unaffected by the findings of the habeas corpus petition.

As the matter stands, the petitioner has been ordered to be released forthwith, provided he is not required in any other ongoing case. The state is now tasked with following through on the disciplinary inquiry against the concerned officer, while the judicial order serves as a stern reminder of the limitations on police powers and the necessity of upholding individual liberty, regardless of the accusations involved. The proceedings underscore that the rule of law applies equally to state officials, who are tasked with upholding, not violating, the rights of the citizenry.