Allahabad High Court Awards ₹1 Lakh Compensation To Man Wrongfully Arrested By Police Without 'Credible Information'

A bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh noted that the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 21 had been infringed by an arbitrary and capricious action on the part of the arresting police personnel and that he was a helpless victim of that act.

Briefly put, the Petitioner (Sunil Kandu @ Sunil Kumar Gupta) had moved the HC seeking compensation for his wrongful arrest in 2017 in connection with a molestation and rape attempt case.

It was his case that his detention was a violation of his human and fundamental rights, as the police officer had arrested him without prima facie satisfaction of the allegations.

Essentially, on March 30, 2017, the complainant lodged an FIR wherein she alleged that an unknown person (allegedly the petitioner) offered her help but later, he molested and tried to rape her. She also claimed that passersby saved her upon hearing her screams.

Acting on this FIR, the police arrested the petitioner from Lucknow on April 17, 2017, more than two weeks after the incident. He was in custody for 79 days before he was granted bail.

Thereafter, in July 2022, the criminal case was dropped after the complainant failed to appear before the Court concerned despite repeated notices.

Further, in the investigation too, it came out that the petitioner was not even present in Gorakhpur on the day of the alleged incident.

Against this backdrop, the petitioner moved the HC seeking compensation for wrongful arrest and detention as per Section 18 (a) (i) in the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. In this regard, he had also moved before the Human Rights Commission.

The bench was apprised that a departmental enquiry was also made against the concerned police personnel and he was found guilty in the said inquiry and was awarded the punishment.

On the other hand, it was contended by the State government that the Human Rights Commission could not have entertained the complaint filed by the petitioner as it was lodged beyond the time prescribed in section 36 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

On ascertaining the facts of the case, the bench was satisfied that the police did not have credible information and thereby could not have reason to believe on the basis of it that the petitioner had committed the alleged offence.

“There is nothing on record nor anything produced before us to show some investigation made pursuant to the information received, for having reason to believe petitioner had committed said offence,” the bench noted in its order.

The Bench further observed that under Section 41(1)(ba) of the CrPC (since repealed but applicable at the time), a police officer can arrest without a warrant only if “credible information” exists and the officer has “reason to believe” that the person committed the offence.

The Court also noted several glaring discrepancies in the police's version as while the FIR and statements alleged the attacker grabbed the victim by the neck and bit her cheek, the Police Medico Legal Report showed absolutely "no hint of injury" to corroborate these specific allegations.

Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P., the HC observed that no arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so and that the police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so

“Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a pers(2011) 14 SCC 481on. It would be prudent for a police officer, in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief, both as to the person's complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter,” the bench remarked.

Regarding the contention that he approached the Human Rights Commission with undue delay, the bench noted that the criminal case against him was disposed of on 14th July, 2022, and less than a year thereafter, he approached the Commission.

Thus, holding that his arrest was not on procedure established by law, the bench thought it fit to award a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh.

Case title - Sunil Kandu @ Sunil Kumar Gupta vs. Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 56