Mistaken Identity Arrests Violate Art 21: Allahabad High Court Pulls Up UP Police For Apprehending Innocents; Orders Action

A bench of Justice Tej Pratap Tiwari stressed that deprivation of liberty of a person on account of mistaken identity is impermissible in law and strikes at the very root of the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The single judge also directed the Police Commissioner, Lucknow, and the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur, to take lawful action against the erring officials for their negligence in this case.

The Court thus allowed the petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC. by applicants [Mohd. Azeem Idrishi and Om Prakash Vishwakarma] by giving them the liberty to seek appropriate relief by way of invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

BRIEFLY PUT, the applicants before the Court were involved in two separate cases; however, it was their identical case that the UP Police failed to verify the identity of the actual accused and instead arrested them.

The first matter pertained to applicant Om Prakash Vishwakarma, who was facing a 2004 case under Sections 420, 504, and 506 IPC. The allegation was that an accused named "Om Prakash" had fraudulently obtained a sale deed (Bainama) from an illiterate woman, and used it to secure a loan of Rs. 1,00,000 from a bank.

However, the applicant before the Court argued that he was a clerk and not the proprietor of the borrower firm. It also came to the notice of the Court that the complainant alleged that her deed was executed in favour of the son of "Bhagauti Devi".

Before the Court, the applicant submitted that while his father's name (Sohan Lal) matched that of the accused, his mother's name was 'Ramrati' and not “Bhagauti Devi”.

The State counsel, on the other hand, also admitted that this was a case of "factual mistake" and since the real accused's mother had died and the father's name was identical, the police mistakenly arrested the applicant based on incomplete information in the NBW.

The second connected matter was related to one Mohd. Azeem Idrishi, who was facing a 2024 case pertaining to allegations of rape, extortion and unlawful religious conversion.

High Court's observations

Justice Tiwari expressed deep concern over the mechanical manner in which the arrests were effected in both cases. The Court noted that, in both cases, the arrest was based on the non-verification of the accused's true identity, resulting in the apprehension of an innocent person due to a factual error by the police.

The Single Judge referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Joginder Kumar vs. State of UP (1994), to underscore that "no arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so."

"Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person”, Justice Tiwari observed in the order.

Thus, the HC set aside the cognizance orders and all consequential proceedings against both applicants.

However, before parting, it issued specific directions for taking "appropriate and lawful action" against the negligent police officers/officials responsible for the unlawful arrests and to submit a compliance report to the High Court within two months.