Allahabad High Court Orders ₹50K Compensation Over 5-Day Illegal Police Detention, Praises Cops For Candid Admission Of Error
The Allahabad High Court last week ordered the State Government to pay ₹50,000 as compensation to a man who was kept in illegal police detention for 5 days, from August 15-August 19, 2026, before being produced before the concerned Magistrate.
A Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev passed the order on a habeas corpus petition filed by Kamlesh Kumar, who alleged that he was unlawfully picked up by 2 armed policemen from his medical shop on August 15.
Briefly put, Petitioner-Kumar was detained after a police inquiry into an allegation made by his neighbor that he was a Bangladeshi citizen. The inquiry conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Intelligence), Commissionerate Prayagraj, alleged that Kumar was a resident of Bangladesh and had a temporary address in West Bengal.
The inquiry report was dated June 27, 2026. Thereafter, an FIR was registered against Kumar under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), and 351(3) of the BNS; Sections 21 and 22 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025; and Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967.
Kumar was taken from his medical shop in Sonar Tara area of Prayagraj by the Meja Police on August 15 and sent to jail only on August 19. Hence, he moved the High Court.
High Court's observations
At the outset, the High Court made it clear that it was not examining the merits of the allegations concerning Kumar's nationality and was restricting itself to the question of his alleged unlawful detention from August 15 onwards.
The HC was apprised that the police conducted an inquiry, which found that the concerned SHO and the IO had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the petitioner's detention on August 15; hence, they were suspended for "gross negligence".
The SHO, in his affidavit, stated that he had instructed two constables to ask Kumar to report at the police station, but they had "misunderstood the message" and instead asked him to accompany them.
He further stated that on August 15, after receiving information about a firing incident in the locality, he left for SRN Hospital, Prayagraj, to attend to the injured and remained there until the early hours of August 16. Meanwhile, the FIR against Kumar was registered on August 16.
The High Court noted that Kumar was shown as arrested only on August 19, although the police inquiry clearly reflected that he had been in police custody since August 15. Taking into account these submissions, the bench remarked thus:
"There is a clear cut admission on the part of the police with regard to the illegal detention of the petitioner for more than 24 hours".
The Bench consequently held thus:
"This Court unhesitatingly holds that the petitioner was held in illegal custody from 15.08.2026 till he was produced before the Magistrate and sent to judicial remand on 19.08.2026".
In view of this, the Court directed that the petitioner be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. It clarified that the order would not prevent the State from arresting him in accordance with law if his custody was subsequently required in the pending criminal case.
The Bench further directed the State to pay ₹50,000 as compensation for illegal detention, to be recovered from such persons as are found responsible after due inquiry.
The compensation was directed to be paid forthwith, while the recovery was to be completed pursuant to the disciplinary inquiry within three months.
However, before parting with the matter, the Court expressed its appreciation for DCP Vivek Chandra Yadav, noting that he had disclosed the error unequivocally in his affidavit, "without trying to beat around the bush", and had accepted the police lapse without ambiguity.
The Bench directed that its appreciation of the DCP's conduct be placed in his service record. It also appreciated the SHO for making a "true disclosure" and accepting the error.
The Court noted that the lack of vigilance had resulted in an individual being incarcerated for five days without the protection of the procedure established by law.
At the same time, it observed that malice was missing in the case. The bench described the episode as an "unfortunate chain of events". The Bench hoped that the police would take corrective measures to prevent such incidents in the future, while ensuring that the requirements of investigation and the constitutional rights of accused persons are both taken into account.
Advocate Satyam Srivastava appeared for the petitioner
Case Title - Kamlesh Kumar (Corpus) And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 735
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 735