The Crossbill News Desk
The Allahabad High Court has ordered the immediate release of a man unlawfully detained by the Uttar Pradesh Police, strongly criticising officers for allegedly completing arrest formalities after taking him into custody.
The court said the episode reflected serious failures in the state police’s compliance with legal procedures and warned that officers appeared to be acting as a “law unto themselves.”
In an order dated October 7, a division bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev declared the detention of petitioner Deepak illegal. It also directed the Uttar Pradesh director general of police (DGP) to develop training modules to educate police personnel on lawful arrest procedures and the protection of individual liberties.
The case arose from a clash between two groups in Noida on August 23, following which Deepak and four other men were taken into custody. The police records indicated that the arrests took place after an FIR was registered. However, the court found that the timeline suggested Deepak had been detained well before the formal complaint was lodged.
“Documents appear to have been prepared and executed as a mere formality, replete with errors that raise serious doubts about the legality of the detention and arrest of the petitioner and others. It appears that the police are a law unto themselves,” the bench said, according to The Times of India.
The judges expressed concern that the case was not an isolated instance of procedural violations by the state police.
“This case reflects the sordid state of affairs prevailing in the Uttar Pradesh Police. Repeatedly, cases have come before this court in which the strict requirements of law, both procedural and substantive, have not been adhered to in letter and spirit,” it added.
According to the chronology examined by the court, the Noida police took Deepak and four others into custody at 7.34 pm on August 23. The FIR, based on a written complaint, was registered at 9.39 pm, nearly two hours after the reported arrest.
The bench also raised questions about the authenticity and preparation of the arrest-related documents. It found preliminary grounds to suspect that a document had been completed retrospectively, with Deepak allegedly signing a blank sheet that was subsequently countersigned by investigating officer Anuj Kumar.
The discrepancies raised doubts about whether the police had followed the mandatory procedures governing detention and arrest.
The court also scrutinised the conduct of Noida assistant commissioner of police Kamlesh Kant and investigating officer Kumar, criticising their understanding of the requirements under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The state government defended the police, arguing that tensions following the clash and the need to prevent further violence had prompted officers to complete the paperwork after taking the men into custody. The court rejected this justification, making it clear that concerns over public order could not override statutory safeguards.
The bench underlined the constitutional protection against arbitrary arrest under Article 22(1), which guarantees that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest and be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice.
The judges also questioned the judicial magistrate who examined the police documents, faulting the magistrate for failing to scrutinise them adequately. Referring to other instances in which people were allegedly kept at police stations for more than 24 hours before being released, the court warned that ignorance of legal requirements would not be accepted as a defence in future cases.
Directing the state police leadership to address these shortcomings through structured training, the High Court stressed that compliance with arrest procedures was not a mere administrative formality but an essential safeguard against the arbitrary exercise of police power.
The court said the episode reflected serious failures in the state police’s compliance with legal procedures and warned that officers appeared to be acting as a “law unto themselves.”
In an order dated October 7, a division bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev declared the detention of petitioner Deepak illegal. It also directed the Uttar Pradesh director general of police (DGP) to develop training modules to educate police personnel on lawful arrest procedures and the protection of individual liberties.
The case arose from a clash between two groups in Noida on August 23, following which Deepak and four other men were taken into custody. The police records indicated that the arrests took place after an FIR was registered. However, the court found that the timeline suggested Deepak had been detained well before the formal complaint was lodged.
“Documents appear to have been prepared and executed as a mere formality, replete with errors that raise serious doubts about the legality of the detention and arrest of the petitioner and others. It appears that the police are a law unto themselves,” the bench said, according to The Times of India.
The judges expressed concern that the case was not an isolated instance of procedural violations by the state police.
“This case reflects the sordid state of affairs prevailing in the Uttar Pradesh Police. Repeatedly, cases have come before this court in which the strict requirements of law, both procedural and substantive, have not been adhered to in letter and spirit,” it added.
According to the chronology examined by the court, the Noida police took Deepak and four others into custody at 7.34 pm on August 23. The FIR, based on a written complaint, was registered at 9.39 pm, nearly two hours after the reported arrest.
The bench also raised questions about the authenticity and preparation of the arrest-related documents. It found preliminary grounds to suspect that a document had been completed retrospectively, with Deepak allegedly signing a blank sheet that was subsequently countersigned by investigating officer Anuj Kumar.
The discrepancies raised doubts about whether the police had followed the mandatory procedures governing detention and arrest.
The court also scrutinised the conduct of Noida assistant commissioner of police Kamlesh Kant and investigating officer Kumar, criticising their understanding of the requirements under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The state government defended the police, arguing that tensions following the clash and the need to prevent further violence had prompted officers to complete the paperwork after taking the men into custody. The court rejected this justification, making it clear that concerns over public order could not override statutory safeguards.
The bench underlined the constitutional protection against arbitrary arrest under Article 22(1), which guarantees that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest and be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice.
The judges also questioned the judicial magistrate who examined the police documents, faulting the magistrate for failing to scrutinise them adequately. Referring to other instances in which people were allegedly kept at police stations for more than 24 hours before being released, the court warned that ignorance of legal requirements would not be accepted as a defence in future cases.
Directing the state police leadership to address these shortcomings through structured training, the High Court stressed that compliance with arrest procedures was not a mere administrative formality but an essential safeguard against the arbitrary exercise of police power.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment