आलमाबाद उच्च न्यायालय ने 40,000 रुपये क्षतिपूर्ति तय की, पुलिस को निर्दोष परिवार सदस्य को रोके नहीं

Police Cannot Detain Innocent Family Member To Force Accused To Surrender: Allahabad High Court Awards ₹40K Compensation

Sparsh Upadhyay

1 Oct 2026 8:31 AM IST

Allahabad HC awards ₹40,000 compensation for unlawful detention of innocent man to pressure accused to surrender.

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the police cannot unlawfully detain an innocent member of the family of the accused to put pressure on the accused to surrender.

A bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant observed that such detention amounts to an unlawful deprivation of liberty and entitles the detained person to compensation.

The Court thus allowed a habeas corpus petition filed regarding the alleged illegal detention of the petitioner/corpus, Arvind Kumar Yadav, at Police Station George Town, Prayagraj.

The Court awarded ₹40,000 compensation to the petitioner for his wrongful and unlawful detention. The division bench directed that the amount be recovered from the salaries of the police personnel responsible for his illegal detention, in such proportions as the State may determine.

Briefly put, an FIR was registered at Police Station George Town, Prayagraj, concerning allegations and an FIR lodged against the petitioner's brother (Suresh Kumar).

The FIR was initially registered under Sections 126(2), 191(2), 352, 115(2) and 75 BNS. Following investigation, Section 109 BNS (attempt to murder) was also added to the FIR.

The petitioner claimed that although he had no connection with the case against his brother, he was taken from his house in Jaunpur on June 23, 2026 and taken to Police Station George Town.

According to the petitioner's case, he was released only at around 7:00 PM on June 26, 2026.

In support of the claim, the petitioner relied upon the Supurdginama furnished at the time of his release, which recorded that he was handed over on June 26.

During the proceedings, the Investigating Officer (IO) appeared before the Court pursuant to its earlier directions and stated that, on the directions of Yogendra Kumar Singh, SHO, he and other police personnel had gone to the petitioner's house and picked him up on June 23 for interrogation in connection with the offence.

The State also did not dispute that the petitioner remained at the police station until his release on June 26 at about 7:00 PM.

The Court had earlier directed the IO to produce the Call Detail Record (CDR) to ascertain the petitioner's location between June 23 and June 26.

The CDR of the petitioner's mobile phone showed his location at Badlapur, Jaunpur, on June 23, followed by his movement towards Prayagraj. At 7:56 AM, his location was shown at George Town, Prayagraj, where the police station concerned is situated.

The mobile phone was switched off at 12:11 PM on June 23 and remained switched off until it was switched on at 8:08 AM on June 27 at Jaunpur.

The Court also took note of the CCTV footage which established the petitioner's presence at Police Station from June 23 to June 25. No CCTV footage for June 26 was produced before the Court.

Taking note of the material before it, the Bench said that it was 'undisputed' that the petitioner/corpus remained in the unlawful custody of the police personnel for at least four days.

In this view of the matter, the Court found the petitioner to be entitled to compensation for his wrongful and unlawful detention at the Police Station. It accordingly awarded him ₹40,000 as compensation, to be paid by the State.

Importantly, the Court directed that the compensation be recovered from the salaries of those persons at the Police Station who were responsible for the illegal detention, in such proportions as the State deemed fit.

The Court further observed that although the petitioner was not involved in the offence, he appeared to have been kept at the police station to bring pressure upon the accused in the case and compel him to surrender before the police.

The accused, however, was subsequently granted anticipatory bail in August 2026.

In strong terms, the Bench observed thus:

"The police cannot resort to pressure tactics to compel the actual offender to surrender before it by unlawfully detaining an innocent member of his family who has no connection with the alleged offence".

The Court added that such an act would constitute unlawful detention and it would make the person amenable to compensation for the unjust loss of liberty, "however, temporary it may be".

The Court also expressed its displeasure with the manner in which SHO Yogendra Kumar Singh and IO Ashvani Savita had conducted themselves in relation to the petitioner.

It directed that the Court's displeasure be duly recorded in the respective service records of both police officers.

With these directions, the habeas corpus petition was disposed of.

Powered by Nyaya 247 News