PRAYAGRAJ, OCT 1: The Allahabad High Court has made it clear that police cannot use an accused person’s family members as leverage to force surrender, holding that the unlawful detention of an innocent relative amounts to a serious deprivation of personal liberty and can invite financial liability on the personnel responsible.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant passed the observations while allowing a habeas corpus petition concerning the alleged illegal detention of Arvind Kumar Yadav at George Town police station in Prayagraj.
The High Court awarded ₹40,000 as compensation to Yadav for his wrongful and unlawful detention and directed that the amount be recovered from the salaries of the police personnel responsible for the illegal custody, in proportions to be determined by the State authorities.
The case arose from an FIR registered at George Town police station against Yadav’s brother, Suresh Kumar. During the course of investigation, Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) relating to attempt to murder was also added to the case.
Yadav maintained before the court that he had no connection with the allegations against his brother, yet police personnel allegedly took him from his residence in Jaunpur on June 23 and brought him to the police station. According to his petition, he remained there until approximately 7 pm on June 26, despite not being an accused in the case.
The petitioner relied upon the Supurdginama, the document prepared at the time of his release, which recorded that he was handed over on June 26.
The proceedings also brought the police version directly before the court. Investigating Officer Ashvani Savita, appearing pursuant to an earlier direction of the High Court, stated that he and other police personnel had gone to Yadav’s residence on the directions of SHO Yogendra Kumar Singh and brought him to the police station on June 23 for interrogation in connection with the offence.
Significantly, the State did not dispute that Yadav remained at the police station until his release at around 7 pm on June 26.
The High Court had earlier directed the investigating officer to produce call detail records to establish Yadav’s location during the period between June 23 and June 26. After examining the material placed before it, the Bench concluded that it was undisputed that Yadav had remained in police custody unlawfully for at least four days.
The court’s observations underline a fundamental limitation on investigative powers: an individual who is not an accused cannot be deprived of liberty merely to exert pressure on another person facing criminal proceedings.
The Bench consequently ordered payment of compensation for the unlawful detention and directed recovery of the amount from the salaries of the police personnel found responsible. The court further ordered that its displeasure over the conduct be duly recorded in the respective service records of the investigating officer and the SHO concerned.
The judgment, dated September 9, places the issue of personal liberty at the centre of police procedure, reiterating that investigative necessity cannot be used as a justification for keeping an unconnected family member in custody without lawful authority.
The ruling also sends a clear institutional message that accountability for unlawful detention can extend beyond judicial censure, with financial consequences for the personnel responsible and adverse remarks entering their official service records.
