Police's Condition In Uttar Pradesh Is A Mess: Allahabad High Court Orally Rebukes Noida Cops Over Man's Illegal Detention
The police's condition in this state is a mess; the officers think they can do anything and get away with it : HC said
The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday allowed a habeas corpus petition challenging the detention of a man by Noida Police, as a bench led by Justice Atul Sreedharan rebuked the police officials for how they took the detenue into custody and subsequently arrested him.
During the hearing, a division Bench of Justice Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev orally told the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Gautam Budh Nagar Commissionerate and the SHO, "Sharm aani chahiye aapko" (you should be ashamed). The bench further remarked thus:
"Police's condition in this state is a mess. The officers think they can do anything and get away with it".
The Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Deepak, a resident of Gautam Buddh Nagar, challenging his detention in connection with a case registered at Police Station Phase-II, Gautam Buddh Nagar.
Case in brief
Briefly put, an incident of violence took place between two groups on August 23, 2026. Police records show that Deepak and four others were taken into custody at 7:34 PM on August 23 under Sections 126, 135, and 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The FIR in Case Crime No. 370 was registered later that evening, at 9:39 PM, based on a written report by Shiv Ram Sharma.
Thus, the undisputed sequence was that the petitioner was already in police custody before the FIR was registered and was subsequently shown as formally arrested in that FIR while he remained in police custody.
The FIR named several persons, whereas the petitioner's case was that it did not name him and attributed no specific role to him.
Another issue before the High Court was the timing of the notice issued to him under Section 130 BNSS.
Allegedly, the Executive Magistrate issued the Section 130 notice to him on August 24, even though the petitioner had already been taken into custody a day before.
Taking exception to the same, the Bench had, on October 5, specifically observed thus:
"The question arises, how the notice which should have been issued before the petitioner could have been taken into custody under Sections 126, 170 of the B.N.S.S. was issued after they were taken into custody".
The Court said that only the Assistant Commissioner of Police-I, Gautam Buddh Nagar Commissionerate, could answer this question.
It consequently directed the ACP to appear before the Court personally, along with all documents relating to the proceedings under Sections 126, 135 and 170 BNSS.
The bench also noted that the arresting officer did not inform any of the arrested persons that they had the right to meet an advocate of their choice during interrogation.
Today's proceedings
Now, today, DSP Kamlesh Kant [ACP-2 (Central Noida)] appeared before the Court. The bench questioned how the police documented the bail-bond procedure.
The Court orally pointed out that the police record did not record that the police asked the petitioner whether he was willing to furnish a specific bail bond amount. The arrest record also did not mention any specific amount.
The Bench expressed displeasure with how the procedure was documented and observed, "Sharm aani chahiye aapko". Given the petitioner's unlawful detention, the Court allowed his petition and ordered his release forthwith.
Petitioner's case
The petition alleged that Deepak was already in custody from August 23, and despite an order directing his release being passed on August 24, he was allegedly never physically released
The petition alleged that he remained in the physical custody and control of the police and was subsequently shown as arrested in Case Crime No. 370.
His plea challenged the legality of his arrest, continued detention and subsequent remand, relying on the sequence reflected in the police records.
It also pointed to discrepancies in the arrest documentation, including the allegation that the arrest memo recording an arrest on August 24 bore signatures/date of August 23.
The petition further argued that an illegal arrest could not automatically be legitimized merely because a subsequent remand order had been passed.
Advocates Arpit Malviya and Awadhesh Kumar Malviya appeared for the petitioner,