'Fruit Of Poisonous Tree': Subsequent Arrest, Remand Cannot Cure Illegal Detention, Holds Allahabad High Court; Awards ₹30K Compensation

Applying the 'Fruit of the Poisonous Tree' doctrine in the context of constitutional protections under Articles 21 and 22, the Allahabad High Court has held that a subsequent formal arrest and remand cannot legitimize an earlier illegal detention.

A Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev held that where the initial detention of a person is unlawful, a subsequent arrest, even if otherwise supported by valid grounds, and the remand proceedings flowing from it would also stand vitiated.

The bench made this observation while allowing the habeas pleas moved concerning the illegal detention of Ravi Chaurasiya. Ordering his release, the Court also awarded him ₹30,000 compensation, to be recovered from those responsible for his illegal detention.

Case in brief

Briefly put, the petitioner had approached the High Court (through his) alleging illegal detention by the Soraon Police in Prayagraj.

According to his case, he was taken into police custody on September 14, 2026, from Ayodhya and brought to the Soraon Police Station. However, no arrest was shown at that stage.

His mother subsequently visited the police station on September 15 to ascertain his well-being, following which a habeas corpus petition was filed before the High Court.

On September 16, the police formally arrested him at 10:45 am, recorded the arrest in the General Diary, conducted his medical examination and produced him before a Magistrate, who remanded him to judicial custody.

The High Court had earlier called for CCTV footage from the police station. However, it found that the counter affidavit filed by the Station House Officer and Investigating Officer clearly admitted the petitioner's custody.

The SHO attributed the failure to record the petitioner's presence in the General Diary to an "inadvertent mistake". The Court, however, rejected this explanation.

High Court's observations

The Bench observed that the SHO, being an experienced police officer, could not have failed to make a General Diary entry recording that the petitioner had been brought to the police station and lodged in the lock-up.

In this regard, the bench invoked the maxim "culpa lata dolo aequiparatur" to stress that gross negligence is treated in law as equivalent to intentional wrongdoing.

The Bench emphasized that whenever the police apprehend a person for investigation or interrogation, his custody must be reflected in the General Diary from the time he is taken into custody.

Hence, it rejected the SHO's explanation that the omission was merely inadvertent and described it as a "conscious omission" aimed at escaping liability for illegal detention.

Against this backdrop, the bench noted that the police made his formal arrest on September 16 only after becoming aware of the habeas corpus petition filed on September 15.

This led the Court to conclude that the petitioner remained in police custody for more than 24 hours without being produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand.

In its order, the Court also examined the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" doctrine, which originated in American criminal jurisprudence.

The Bench clarified that Indian courts have not applied the doctrine in the same manner in the law of evidence. However, it said the doctrine could be examined in a different context, namely, constitutional law and the civil liberties protected under Part III of the Constitution.

The Court held that the doctrine applies to detention and arrest.

"In a situation where the subsequent arrest follows an unlawful detention of the corpus, the arrest is rendered unlawful as so are the proceedings of remand by the judicial magistrate as the genesis leading to the arrest was the unlawful detention of the accused violating his right under Art 22", the Court remarked.

The Bench explained that the initial unlawful detention is the "poisonous tree", while subsequent actions flowing from it constitute its 'fruit'.

The Court also relied on the Supreme Court's recent judgment in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab, noting that it has been held that where an arrest is unconstitutional for violating Article 22(1), subsequent remand orders are also vitiated.

In this case, the Supreme Court had further held that filing of a chargesheet and taking cognizance would not validate such an unconstitutional arrest.

Applying the principle, the Allahabad High Court held that even where valid grounds for a subsequent arrest exist, the arrest and remand proceedings would stand vitiated if they follow an initial detention violative of Articles 21 and 22.

The Court categorically held that "the police cannot be permitted to legitimize an arrest" where it follows an act of unlawful detention.

The Court also found non-compliance with Section 38 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in the present case. The provision concerns an accused's right to meet an advocate of his choice during investigation.

The Bench noted that the petitioner was neither informed of this right nor given the opportunity to have counsel present during the relevant period.

It further held that the police cannot circumvent this safeguard by taking a suspect to the police station for interrogation without formally arresting him and subsequently relying on self-incriminating statements made during such interrogation.

The Court clarified that the police's duty under Section 38 BNSS also arises when they take a suspect to a police station for interrogation, even before formally arresting him or making him an accused.

Against this backdrop, the Court directed the Commissioner, Prayagraj, to conduct an inquiry into the matter and fix responsibility for the illegal detention. The Court also ordered that an appropriate action be taken against those responsible.

The bench also recorded its displeasure with the conduct of the Soraon SHO and directed that, if the inquiry finds negligence on his part, the Court's displeasure should be entered in his service record.

While clarifying that the police may re-arrest the petitioner in accordance with law and the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court, the Bench directed his forthwith release, if not wanted in any other case.

The habeas corpus petition was accordingly disposed of.

Senior Advocate Imran Ullah, assisted by Advocate Devesh Kumar Shukla, appeared for the petitioner.