Magistrates, Cops Personally Liable To Compensate For Illegal Preventive Detention : Allahabad High Court Issues Guidelines

A bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi further directed that this compensation must be recovered directly from the salaries of the erring Magistrates or police officials.

Additionally, the bench mandated that the Magistrate and the police official, who are prima facie found responsible for the lapse, shall be subjected to disciplinary proceedings for dereliction of duty in accordance with their relevant service Rules.

The bench also directed that no surety should ordinarily be insisted upon for the release of such persons. Furthermore, the amount of personal bond should not exceed ₹20,000.

The division bench passed this order while noting a disturbing trend in the state, where police officials and magistrates are casually sending persons to jail for days on the mere apprehension of a breach of the peace, acting in a "highly irresponsible manner".

Case in brief

Briefly put, the bench was dealing with a habeas corpus petition filed by Chander Pal Singh, an advocate with disabilities, practising before the High Court.

It was his case that on February 22, 2026, he was forcibly taken away by the Ghaziabad police over a trivial complaint by a neighbour alleging that he had obstructed a passage by installing a gate.

He was not produced before any Magistrate within 24 hours, as required by law, and was only produced before an Assistant Commissioner of Police the next day. Thereafter, he was sent to jail under Section 151 CrPC/Section 170 BNSS.

The next day, Singh and his nephew furnished a bond of ₹50,000 to keep the peace under Sections 170, 126 &135 BNSS, and despite this, they were not released.

It was only after Singh filed this habeas corpus petition and the High Court intervened, demanding instructions from the State, that he was released on February 25. His nephew, however, was released on Feb 26.

High Court's order

Taking into account the facts of this case, the bench observed that despite there being a clear State Government policy (of March 23, 2021), which provides guidance to District Magistrates, Executive and Special Magistrates in matters of public peace, police officials and Magistrates are acting in a “highly irresponsible manner”.

The Court noted that persons brought before it merely to prevent a breach of the peace are routinely sent to jail for days at a time.

The Bench further pointed out an error being committed across the state regarding Section 170 of the BNSS, which does not provide for the execution of any bond or the furnishing of any surety.

Yet, the bench observed that the Magistrates are illegally insisting on bonds of ₹50,000 with one or two sureties of like amount whenever an arrest is made on the allegation of a breach of the peace.

Importantly, the Bench also took note of a compliance affidavit filed by the Ghaziabad Police Commissioner stating that no person was currently in detention.

The Bench, however, pointed out that the report showed that persons had earlier been arrested and detained in jail for several days and were released only after the Court's order "to show good work".

Against this backdrop, the bench considered the question of payment of monetary compensation to the person whose right to liberty is violated by the public servants.

The bench referred to the Supreme Court 2026 judgment in Daudayal Vs. State of Rajasthan 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 567, which itself referred to the historic case of Nilabati Behera vs State Of Orissa 1993, wherein it was held that when the State fails in its public duty to protect fundamental rights, then monetary compensation in the nature of 'exemplary damages' can be granted.

The Court also relied on coordinate bench rulings in Amit Jani Vs. State of U.P. and others 2020 and Shiv Kumar Verma And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others, wherein it was held that the order of detention under Chapter - VIII CrPC can be passed only in default of execution of bond and not otherwise. Thus, a detention order can be passed only upon failure to execute a bond.

Against this backdrop, the bench observed that Rs. 25K compensation fixed in the 2021 State Policy deserved to be enhanced by framing a new policy after the BNSS provisions came into force.

However, until a new policy is brought into force by the State Government and keeping in view the flagrant violation of right to liberty of the illegally detained and jailed persons, the bench issued the following direction:

• After preventive detention of any person under the provisions of BNSS/CrPC, he shall be required to furnish a personal bond (signature bond without deposit of any money) binding him to keep peace and maintain good behaviour.
• The amount of such bond shall not exceed 20,000/- and no ₹ surety shall be required to be furnished. In case amount of bond is increased, reasons for the same shall be given by the Magistrate in writing. On the date of detention, if bond is executed by the person detained, he shall be set free.
• In case accused refuses to execute the personal bond for keeping peace on being produced before the Magistrate/ Commissioner of Police on the same day, his refusal shall be recorded by means of written and audio-visual mode before sending him to jail.
• He shall be produced before the Magistrate on the date stated by him at the time of his refusal to furnish personal bond to enable him to produce personal bond on the day chosen by him.
• Further, in cases where a person is detained for more than 24 hours in violation of this order, without any plausible reason, an amount of ₹25,000/- per day shall be payable to the detained person as compensation by the State Government.
• The said amount shall be recovered by deduction from the salary of the concerned Magistrate and/or police officer, or both, as the case may be, if they are found responsible for the default, after conducting disciplinary proceedings against them and fixing their liability.
• The Magistrate and/or police official prima facie found responsible for the lapse, or both, shall be subjected to disciplinary proceedings for dereliction of duty as per their relevant service Rules.

On the merits of the present case, the bench found that the petitioner Advocate was illegally detained in jail from February 22 to February 25; hence, it held that he was entitled to a total compensation of ₹75,000.

The State Government was directed to pay this amount within 6 weeks and subsequently recover it from the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Police, and/or the concerned SHO.

The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to send a copy of this order to the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, within a week, for necessary compliance by issuing a circular to all police heads in the Police Commissionerates or Districts.

Case : Chander Pal Singh v State of UP and others

Click here to read the judgment