Allahabad High Court Regrets Being 'Unduly Harsh' On Bareilly SSP; Orders Petitioner To Pay Him ₹50K In Costs: Here's Why

The Allahabad High Court last week expressed regret for having been "unduly harsh" towards Bareilly Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Anurag Arya, after it discovered that a petitioner had concealed the filing of an earlier habeas corpus petition concerning the same sequence of events.

A Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev dismissed two habeas corpus petitions filed by Omendra Yadav, holding that he had not approached the Court with clean hands and had indulged in suppressio veri and suggestio falsi (suppression of truth and suggestion of falsehood).

The Bench also imposed costs of ₹25,000 for each petition, amounting to ₹50,000 in total and directed the petitioner to pay the amount to the Bareilly SSP within one month. In case of non-payment, the amount would be recovered as arrears of revenue and given to the SSP.

The Court clarified that it would not have subjected the SSP to such 'unwarranted' verbal harshness had the Additional Government Advocate (AGA) office informed it at the outset about the filing of an earlier petition and the alleged suppression of facts by the petitioner.

"This Court would not have had to face the embarrassment making the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly the target of its angst," the Bench observed.

The Court added that it "sincerely regrets having subjected to such verbal harshness which was unwarranted".

Case in brief

Briefly put, the petitioner had initially filed a Habeas Corpus Writ Petition alleging that he had been illegally detained by the local police in Bareilly from May 8 to May 13, 2026, when he was formally arrested.

The petitioner's counsel sought production of CCTV footage from the police station to ascertain whether he had been illegally detained. The State, however, stated that heavy rain and a storm had damaged the CCTV system and DVR due to a short circuit.

On May 26, a coordinate Bench directed the Bareilly SSP to file a personal affidavit explaining how the CCTV cameras had stopped functioning, whether he had been immediately informed and why the lapse had occurred despite the Supreme Court's directions in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh.

The SSP subsequently filed a personal affidavit explaining the non-availability of CCTV footage for May 8 to 13.

High Court's observations

On October 27, the same bench of Justice Sreedharan and Justice Sachdev questioned the SSP's explanation while observing that the affidavit did not adequately explain how the storm affected cameras inside the police station and how damage occurring between May 13 and 15 could have affected recordings from the preceding days.

The Court then observed that, prima facie, the SSP appeared to have filed a "false affidavit" and directed his personal appearance to answer further queries.

However, in its October 30 order, the Bench noted that the petitioner had filed another habeas corpus petition on May 26, after the State had filed its counter-affidavit in the first petition on May 18.

The second petition (the present petition) did not disclose the filing of the earlier petition concerning the same sequence of events. It was presented as the first habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court observed that the second petition did not contain the mandatory disclosure regarding the earlier petition and the petitioner had sought release by referring to his detention pursuant to the remand order dated May 13.

The Bench observed that the earlier petition did not contain a specific averment regarding the date, place or time when the petitioner was allegedly taken into police custody. It also noted that the petitioner's counsel could not point to any specific pleading establishing the period of alleged illegal detention.

The Court said that the second petition sought to make good the deficiencies in the first petition but concealed the fact that the earlier petition had already been filed.

It further observed that the AGA office should have informed the Court at the outset that the petition itself amounted to an abuse of process and that the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands.

Had this been brought to its notice, the Court said, it would not have made the SSP the subject of its 'angst'.

"The fault lies at the doorstep of the A.G.A. Office with the petitioner for having hidden the true facts from this Court and not approached the Court with clean hands and indulging in an abuse of process," the Bench observed.

Consequently, the Bench dismissed both habeas corpus petitions for being filed without approaching the Court with clean hands and for indulging in suppressio veri and suggestio falsi.

The Court imposed costs of ₹25,000 per petition, totalling ₹50,000, payable to the Bareilly SSP within one month. It directed that, in case of default, the amount would be recovered as arrears of revenue and paid to the SSP.

Senior Counsel Mahendra Pratap, assisted by Advocate Anurag Yadav, appeared for the petitioner

Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi, assisted by Additional Government Advocate Nitesh Kumar Srivastava, appeared for the State-respondents.