Two versions of one arrest memo, and a man still in custody: the Allahabad High Court has ordered a perjury inquiry over a fabricated arrest memo placed before it by the police in a habeas corpus case, and has directed the release of an Aligarh man whose grounds of arrest it found deficient.
Prayagraj: While allowing a habeas corpus petition and ordering the release of a man arrested in a forgery case in Aligarh, because the grounds of arrest furnished to him were deficient, the Allahabad High Court has asked its Registrar General to inquire into the alleged fabrication of an arrest memo and perjury before the Court by the police [Junaid and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others].
The order of October 14, 2026 came from a Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev. The release is without prejudice to the petitioner’s re-arrest, and the Court said it was not required to, and did not, express any view on the merits of the underlying forgery case.
The arrest and the two memos
The petitioner was arrested in FIR Crime No. 650 of 2026 registered at Police Station Quarsi, Aligarh, under Sections 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which correspond to Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. These are allegations in the FIR and are untested. According to the petition, he was taken into custody at about 3:00 a.m. on August 6, 2026 and held at Police Chowki Jamalpur.
His habeas corpus petition argued that the arrest memo handed to him did not disclose the grounds of arrest; the copy he held recorded the ground only as “in the above case”. A certified copy of the memo placed before the remand Magistrate matched his copy.
The State, though, annexed a different arrest memo to its counter affidavit. The Court found that Items 12 and 13 on that version had been filled in after the arrest, apparently after the habeas petition was filed. The counter affidavit also denied that CCTV cameras were installed at the Chowki, whereas photographs annexed to the rejoinder showed cameras at its entrance.
The Bench’s finding
The grounds of arrest in the original memo were perfunctory, the Bench found, and the police version before the Court had been altered. It recorded:
“the police have indulged in fabrication of the arrest memo and perjury before this Court.”
The Court observed that the blame did not lie with the officer who had affirmed the counter affidavit. The order does not name the Investigating Officer, and no finding has been recorded against any individual. Regarding the conduct as serious because it occurred in a judicial proceeding, the Bench invoked Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for offences referred to in Section 215 of the Sanhita.
What the Supreme Court has said on grounds of arrest
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that communicating the grounds of arrest is a constitutional requirement under Article 22(1). In Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023) it required written grounds under the PMLA, and in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) it held that a breach vitiates the arrest and remand. In Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (November 6, 2025) it held that, under Article 22(1) and Section 47 of the BNSS, the grounds must be communicated in writing in a language the arrestee understands, subject to narrow exceptions, failing which the arrest and remand are illegal and the arrestee must be released.
The prosecution may seek remand afresh. The Bench here applied the same logic, releasing the petitioner subject to Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab (2026 INSC 1022).
Release, and an inquiry
The petition was allowed because the grounds of arrest were deficient and inadequate for the petitioner to seek bail, and the Court ordered that he be released forthwith if not required in any other case, without prejudice to re-arrest. It then directed the Registrar General to proceed under Section 379 of the BNSS and, if prima facie satisfied after an inquiry on the records that documents were fabricated and perjury was committed before the Court, to file a case before the competent court against those prima facie involved:
“direct the Registrar General of this Court to proceed under Section 379 of BNSS”
What the order shows
The order shows that a High Court will set the arrest memo before the remand Magistrate beside the version filed with the counter affidavit, and that a mismatch can itself set an inquiry in motion. Whether the allegations of fabrication are made out will be decided only in the inquiry the Court has directed, and nothing in the order is a finding of guilt against any police officer.
For the petitioner, the forgery allegations remain untested. The Court expressed no view on the merits, and the presumption of innocence applies.
Case Title: Junaid and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others [Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 1389 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev, Allahabad High Court
Date of Order: October 14, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Mohit Singh with advocate Subir Lal (also listed: Mohammad Rashid, Mohd Asif) for the petitioners; the Government Advocate for the State