The Allahabad High Court has strongly criticised the Uttar Pradesh Police for allegedly acting as though they were above the law, declaring the arrest and detention of several individuals illegal and ordering their immediate release, provided they are not wanted in any other case.
The court also questioned the role of the magistrate and flagged serious procedural lapses in the police action, emphasising that a tense situation cannot justify violations of legal safeguards.
A division bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev passed the order while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by Deepak in connection with an incident in Gautam Buddha Nagar.
The case stemmed from a violent clash between two groups on August 23, 2024.
COURT FLAGS PROCEDURAL LAPSES
According to the case details, Deepak and four others were taken into custody at 7:34 pm on August 23 under Sections 126, 135 and 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). An FIR based on a written complaint was registered later that evening at 9:39 pm.
Deepak was subsequently shown as formally arrested in connection with the FIR on August 24 at 2:57 pm.
The sequence of events, however, indicated that the individuals had already been taken into custody before the FIR was registered, with the formal arrest recorded while Deepak was already in police custody.
The High Court found that the police had failed to comply with the prescribed procedures governing preventive action and detention. It noted multiple discrepancies in the documents submitted by the investigating officer, including inconsistencies in the dates of arrest and personal search.
A document signed by the investigating officer on August 23 recorded the arrest date as August 24. The personal search and seizure document also carried the August 23 date and bore the officer's signature in two places.
The investigating officer attributed these inconsistencies to errors in recording dates. However, the bench was not convinced, observing that date-related discrepancies appeared at five places in the documents and that the corrections had neither been made nor authenticated.
COURT QUESTIONS PREVENTIVE ACTION RECORDS
The bench also identified shortcomings in documents relating to preventive proceedings.
The column for the bond amount was left blank, while the necessary signatures, dates and time entries indicating whether the Assistant Commissioner of Police had accepted or rejected the bond were missing.
Additionally, a notice purportedly issued on August 24 under Section 130 of the BNSS bore the signature of Assistant Commissioner of Police-II Kamlesh Kant, although it was stated to have been issued in the name of the Assistant Commissioner of Police-I.
The court observed that, prima facie, there was a strong suspicion that the document had been filled out at a later stage.
The bench expressed concern over what it described as a disturbing pattern of police procedures being treated as formalities, with errors raising doubts about the legality of arrests and detention.
It remarked that the police appeared to function under the assumption that they were above the law.
The state government argued that tensions prevailed at the scene, where a crowd had gathered, and that the police acted in good faith to prevent the situation from escalating.
The court, however, maintained that a tense environment did not exempt the police from following the law.
It underlined that procedural safeguards under the BNSS and the Constitution are essential protections against arbitrary detention.
Referring to Article 22(1) of the Constitution, the bench stressed that the police cannot disregard the legal requirements governing arrest and detention.
The court also expressed concern over the apparent lack of sensitivity towards the civil liberties of ordinary citizens, noting that arrest and detention should not be the automatic response when alternative measures may be available.
The immediate consequence of the ruling is the release of the detained individuals, subject to them not being wanted in another case.
The observations also underline the need for police authorities to follow mandatory procedures and maintain accurate records, with the legality of any further action remaining subject to applicable law and the court's directions.
- Ends
Inputs by Anand Raj