Allahabad High Court Directs UP Govt To Pay ₹10 Lakh Compensation To Man Over 3-Month Illegal Detention

A bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava noted that the State authorities had curtailed the petitioner's personal liberty by failing to provide him with the written grounds of arrest. This, the Court said, had violated his Fundamental Right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

In this regard, the bench heavily relied on the Apex Court's landmark ruling in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1066 wherein it was held that the failure to provide the grounds of arrest in writing to an arrestee, in the language he/she understands, would render the arrest and subsequent remand illegal.

Consequently, the bench allowed the habeas corpus petition and ordered the immediate release of the petitioner, who was arrested without providing him with the 'grounds' on which he was sought to be arrested.

Briefly, the petitioner (Manoj Kumar) was arrested on January 27, 2026, in connection with an FIR filed in 2024. As stated earlier, the arrest memo did not state the specific grounds for his arrest and it merely mentioned the case crime number.

Subsequently, the concerned Magistrate too remanded him on January 28, 2026. Therefore, challenging his arrest, remand order and continued detention, the petitioner approached the High Court with the present habeas corpus writ petition.

Hearing the case on April 24, the Bench had prima facie observed that the petitioner's arrest was illegal, as it was made without complying with the procedure directed by the Supreme Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah.

The bench had also recorded that the remand order granted by the Magistrate (on January 28) was also liable to be set aside, keeping in view the judgment of this Court in the case of Shivam Chaurasiya vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 76.

Importantly, during the April 24 hearing, the Court had asked the Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Government of UP, to submit a reply as to why exemplary costs should not be awarded to the petitioner for his illegal incarceration in jail.

However, when the matter was taken up on April 29, the bench found that while a personal affidavit had been filed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), it did not respond to the Court's query on the exemplary cost issue.

Instead, the affidavit merely stated that a detailed report had been sought from the Director General of Police.

Taking strong exception to this evasive reply, the bench made the following stern remark:

"…the personal affidavit does not even contain a whisper regarding the explanation as to why exemplary cost should not be imposed. If this is the non-application of mind at the end of the highest authority of the Home Department i.e. Additional Chief Secretary (Home), we can well understand as to how the other authorities of the State are working!!!"

The bench also expressed displeasure at the authorities for not releasing the accused despite the Court's previous order, opining that the arrest was illegal. The bench remarked thus:

"…despite the order of this court dated 24.4.2026, the respondent authorities have failed to wake up from their slumber and the illegal incarceration of the petitioner still continues".

Hence, allowing the writ petition, the bench declared the arrest and remand illegal and directed the petitioner's forthwith release.

Furthermore, considering the petitioner's illegal arrest, which continued even on the day the order was passed, the bench opined that a cost of 10 lakh rupees was appropriate to be imposed on the state government, to be paid to the petitioner within 4 weeks.

The Court further clarified that the State Government will have the liberty to recover the same from the officials who were responsible in accordance with law.