The Court ruled that illegal detention violates constitutional rights and statutory procedures, mandating police compliance with judicial orders.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

1. Affidavits of compliance filed by the learned AGA on behalf of Sri Anurag Awasthi, Station House Officer, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Lalitpur as well as Sri Narendra Singh, Investigating Officer are taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Shukla, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Pankaj Saxena along with Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.881 of 2025, under Sections-318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) BNS, Police Station-Kotwali Lalitpur, District-Lalitpur, during the pendency of the trial.

4. As per the prosecution story, present applicant, in collusion with some of the co-accused, opened the bank accounts of some of the loanees in Axis Bank and after getting sanctioned the loan from Bajaj Finance Ltd., in collusion with the officials of finance company, transferred the same in that account and thereafter, withdrew a major part of the loan amount from those accounts, and very small amount was given to loanee thereby cheating the Bajaj Finance Limited.

5. This matter was heard on 04.02.2026. On that date, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that actually, the police has taken the custody of the applicant on 14.09.2025 without showing his formal arrest. Thereafter, the sister of the applicant moved an application before the CJM, Lalitpur on 16.09.2025, mentioning therein that the police has taken the applicant into custody on 14.09.2025, but his arrest has not been shown till date. Apart from the above application, an anticipatory bail application was also filed on behalf of the applicant on 16.09.2025, mentioning therein about the illegal custody of the applicant since 14.09.2025 and same was dismissed on 18.09.2025, on being informed by the DGC (Criminal) about the arrest of the applicant in the morning of 17.09.2025.

6. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur considering the application dated 16.09.2025, directed the police station concerned vide order dated 17.09.2025 to submit report regarding illegal arrest and providing CCTV footage of the police station. When no report was submitted, then the learned Magistrate, vide order dated 22.09.2025, directed the In-charge I.O., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Lalitpur to show cause why he has not complied the order dated 17.09.2025 and also directed him to appear personally before him on 24.09.2025. A copy of this notice was also sent to the Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur. Despite the order dated 22.09.2025, neither any report was submitted nor the CCTV footage of the police station has been produced before the court. Then the CJM again issued a notice dated 30.09.2025, directing the SHO as well as I.O. to comply his earlier order by producing CCTV footage of the police station for 14/15.09.2025 and further sought an explanation why the co-accused Rashida, despite being a lady, has been arrested at 4:00 am, though, a lady cannot be arrested after the sunset and before the sunrise. In the aforesaid notice/order, the learned CJM, specifically directed to SHO as well as I.O. to submit their explanation by 04.10.2025. Despite the order dated 30.09.2025, neither the SHO nor the I.O. of Police Station-Kotwali, District-Lalitpur has provided CCTV footage or explanation as sought by earlier order. Then the In- charge CJM, Lalitpur passed a fresh order dated 03.11.2025, directing the SHO as well as the I.O. of Police Station-Kotwali, District-Lalitpur that in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Paramvir Singh Saini Vs. Baljit Singh and Others, (2021) 1 SCC 184, they were required to keep the CCTV footage at least for six months, but they have not produced the CCTV footage. Therefore, they should appear before him at 10:00 am on 04.