Allahabad HC Directs UP Govt To Pay ₹5 Lakh Compensation To Man Arrested & Detained 'Illegally' Despite Stay Order

The Allahabad High Court on Friday directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to pay Rs. 5 lakh as compensation to a man who was arrested and kept in 'illegal detention' by UP Police despite the HC's interim order staying his arrest.

A bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi also directed that disciplinary proceedings be initiated against the concerned SHO for "dereliction in the due discharge of official duty, violation of the order passed by this Court and commission of an act of indiscipline".

Briefly put, the division bench was hearing a habeas corpus petition moved by Anil Soni (corpus). It was the petitioner's case that he was facing an FIR under Section 69 (Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means) and other sections of the BNS, along with provisions of the SC/ST Act.

The FIR was lodged by a woman with whom he allegedly had a love affair for the last two years.

Seeking relief in the case, he had earlier moved the High Court challenging the FIR. On April 1, a division bench passed an interim order specifically staying his arrest in the said FIR. Although this order was uploaded to HC's website on April 6, he was arrested on April 4 by the concerned SHO.

In his habeas plea, the petitioner submitted that his brother had prepared a notarised affidavit on the day of the arrest to inform the SHO of the High Court's interim order.

Furthermore, even his counsel contacted the SHO via his CUG mobile numbers, but the officer concerned brushed off the information, stating he was in "teshil diwas" and would only take action after getting directions from his higher authorities.

Before the High Court, the AGA justified the arrest of the petitioner, contending that the SHO was bound to make the arrest on account of the non-production of the interim order of stay of his arrest.

The bench, however, rejected the state's justification, noting that the interim order was passed in the presence of the learned AGA appearing on behalf of the respondents and the learned counsel for the informant. Hence, the bench noted that all the respondents were fully aware of the order.

In fact, the bench took into account that even after filing the present plea, on which replies were sought from the respondents, the petitioner No. 1 was not released from jail. In fact, the respondents justified the petitioner's arrest before the HC.

Taking strong exception to the facts of this case, the bench pointed out an 'unfortunate trend' that it said is gaining momentum. The bench observed:

"We have noted that this unfortunate trend is given the momentum. Learned counsel for the State do either not intimate the orders passed by this Court to the police authorities as a result of which the authorities do not comply the order passed by this Court or the police authorities are disrespectful towards the Court orders and they act in mala fide manner."

The Court noted that even after the present habeas corpus plea was filed on April 13 and counter-affidavits were called for multiple times, the respondents made no effort to comply with the interim order.

The court further took exception to the fact that, despite the Superintendent of Police, Siddharth Nagar, receiving a copy of the Court's order at his house by registered post on April 13, the petitioner was still not released from jail.

In fact, the petitioner was ultimately released from jail only on April 29, that too, after the High Court's intervention and a direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar, to do so.

Therefore, finding that the SHO concerned deserved punishment for dereliction in the due discharge of his official duty for not complying with the HC's order, the bench directed that disciplinary action be taken against him. The state has also been granted the liberty to recover the compensation amount (Rs. 5 Lakh) from him.

The bench has now posted the matter on July 13, and on that day, the concerned SP has been directed to file a compliance affidavit regarding payment of Compensation to the petitioner, as well as an intimation of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the SHO.

In case of failure, Superintendent of Police, Siddharth Nagar, shall be present before the Court, the bench further directed.

Case Title: Anil Soni (Corpus) And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 302

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 302

Click Here To Read/Download Order