The Allahabad High Court recently awarded compensation of ₹1.25 lakh to a man who was kept in illegal police custody for 5 days.

The Court observed that the investigating officer had demonstrated "arrogance of authority" by detaining him without following the procedure established by law.

A Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev passed the order, allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by Gyanti Devi and two others seeking Chandan Rajbhar's release.

The Court awarded compensation at the rate of ₹25,000 for each day of unlawful detention. It further clarified that the compensation would not preclude Rajbhar from suing the Police Department in an action in tort for damages.

The Court also observed that if the I.O. is found guilty as charged in the departmental inquiry, the harshest punishment for his deliberate actions be considered to be imposed upon him.

Case in brief

An FIR was lodged on July 18, 2026, under Section 87 BNSS at Salempur Police Station in Deoria. The complainant, who is the mother of petitioner No. 3, alleged that Chandan Rajbhar had eloped with her 18-year-old daughter.

According to the petitioners, Rajbhar and the complainant's daughter subsequently got married at a Durga temple in Siwan, Bihar, and moved to Pune, where they were living together as husband and wife.

The petitioners alleged that police personnel, accompanied by the woman's father, reached their matrimonial residence in Pune during the intervening night of August 24 and 25 and took the couple into custody.

They were brought to the concerned Police Station during the intervening night of August 27 and 28.

Rajbhar's case was that he was kept in unlawful detention from August 28 to September 2, 2026 and that his arrest memo was prepared only on September 2.

Earlier, in its order passed on October 9, the High Court directed the police to produce CCTV recordings of the Police Station from 6 pm on August 27 to 10 pm on September 2.

Although the CCTV footage was produced, the Court found it unnecessary to peruse the recordings after the State counsel drew its attention to an inquiry report dated October 21, prepared by the Circle Officer and forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Deoria.

The report categorically accepted that the Investigating Officer (Deep Narayan Yadav) had deliberately taken Rajbhar into custody on August 28 and kept him in illegal confinement until September 2, when his formal arrest was shown.

The Court noted that the Circle Officer's report accepted that Rajbhar had been kept under unlawful detention for 5 days at the Police Station and that his “fabricated arrest (फर्जी गिरफ्तारी)” was shown on September 2, after which he was produced before the Magistrate for remand.

The report also recorded that the IO had acted negligently, in contravention of his duties and in gross dereliction thereof. Following the report, the Superintendent of Police, Deoria, initiated departmental proceedings against the Investigating Officer on October 21.

High Court's observations

Taking into account the action taken against the IO, the bench appreciated the "candour and honesty" displayed by the Circle Officer in disclosing the true facts to this Court through his inquiry report.

The bench also appreciated the subsequent action taken by the Superintendent of Police. It added thus:

"Therefore, what comes out from the entire exercise conducted by the police is that the case of the petitioner is accepted relating to unlawful detention".

While considering the claim for compensation, the High Court strongly criticized the manner in which the IO had detained Rajbhar for five days without following the procedure established by law. The Court observed thus:

"The manner in which the I.O. has demonstrated his arrogance of authority, by detaining petitioner No.2 for full five days without even thinking twice and without following the procedure established by law, makes it appear that he considered it business as usual".

As regards compensation, the Court held that Rajbhar was entitled to ₹25,000 for each of the five days he remained in custody without adherence to the procedure established by law. Accordingly, it awarded him ₹1,25,000.

It also directed that the compensation granted to Rajbhar could be recovered from the persons who, after an inquiry, were found guilty of having detained him. The State may effect such recovery, if it so desired.

Allowing the habeas corpus petition, the High Court directed that Rajbhar be set at liberty forthwith, if he was not required in any other case.

The Bench also requested the State to record its appreciation of Circle Officer Rajesh Chaturvedi and Deoria Superintendent of Police Abhijeet R. Shankar in their respective service records, noting that they had made a full and true disclosure of the Investigating Officer's actions.

At the same time, the Court made it clear that its observations in the habeas corpus proceedings would not affect the criminal case pending against Rajbhar.

It said the trial court would try and conclude the case based on the evidence adduced before it, uninfluenced by the High Court's observations.