ALLAHABAD: The Allahabad high court has directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay Rs 1.25 lakh in compensation to a man who was illegally detained at a police station for five days before being formally arrested, criticising the investigating officer for his “arrogance of authority”.




A bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev ordered compensation at the rate of Rs 25,000 for each day of unlawful detention. It also directed the state to recover the amount from the police personnel found guilty in a departmental inquiry.




The court said the investigating officer, Deep Narayan Yadav, had detained Chandan Rajbhar for five days without following the procedure established by law.




“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,” the bench observed.




The court further said the harshest punishment should be considered if Yadav was found guilty in the departmental inquiry initiated against him.




The order was passed on October 29 while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by Gyanti Devi and two others seeking Rajbhar's release. The state had conceded that the investigating officer had illegally detained him.




Man detained before formal arrest


The case stemmed from an FIR registered at Salempur police station in Deoria district on July 18, 2026, following a complaint that Rajbhar had eloped with an 18-year-old woman.




According to the petitioners, the couple subsequently married at a Durga temple in Siwan, Bihar, and moved to Pune, where they lived together.




The petitioners alleged that police personnel, accompanied by the woman's father, reached the couple's residence in Pune during the intervening night of August 24 and 25 and took them into custody. They were brought to the police station on the intervening night of August 27 and 28.




Rajbhar was allegedly kept in illegal custody from August 28 to September 2, when his formal arrest was recorded. He was subsequently produced before a magistrate for remand.




In an earlier order dated October 9, the high court had directed the police to produce CCTV footage from the police station covering the period from 6 pm on August 27 to 10 pm on September 2.




Although the footage was produced, the bench said it was unnecessary to examine the recordings after the state counsel drew its attention to an inquiry report prepared by Circle Officer Rajesh Chaturvedi on October 21.




The report established that Yadav had deliberately detained Rajbhar on August 28 and kept him in unlawful confinement until September 2. It described the subsequent recording of his arrest as a fabricated arrest and found the investigating officer guilty of negligence and gross dereliction of duty.




Following the report, Deoria Superintendent of Police Abhijeet R Shankar initiated departmental proceedings against Yadav on October 21.




Compensation may be recovered from guilty officers


Taking note of the inquiry, the bench appreciated Chaturvedi's “candour and honesty” in disclosing the facts and acknowledged the action taken by the superintendent of police.




“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,” the court said.




It awarded Rajbhar Rs 1.25 lakh for the five days he spent in custody without due process, clarifying that the compensation would not prevent him from filing a separate civil claim against the police department for damages.




The bench directed that the compensation could be recovered from the persons found responsible for the illegal detention after the departmental inquiry.




Allowing the petition, the court ordered Rajbhar's release forthwith, provided he was not required in any other case.




The bench also directed the state to record its appreciation of Chaturvedi and SP Shankar in their service records for disclosing the facts and taking appropriate action.




However, it clarified that its observations in the habeas corpus proceedings would not influence the criminal case against Rajbhar. The trial court was directed to decide the case on the basis of evidence presented before it.




(With Bar and Bench inputs)