Allahabad High Court Frees Noida Man held in illegal detention: “Sharm aani chahiye aapko,” a bench led by Justice Atul Sreedharan orally told the police officers before it.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Prayagraj: A habeas corpus petition against the detention of a man by the Noida police succeeded in the Allahabad High Court on Wednesday, with the bench ordering his release forthwith and orally rebuking officers over how he was taken into custody and then shown as arrested [Deepak v. State of Uttar Pradesh].
The Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev addressed the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Gautam Budh Nagar Commissionerate, and the Station House Officer in those words (you should be ashamed). Orally, it added that the police’s condition in the State was “a mess” and that “the officers think they can do anything and get away with it”. These are oral observations made during the hearing.
A question the bench put on October 5
The bench had first taken exception on October 5 to the timing of the notice under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). It was alleged that the Executive Magistrate issued the notice on August 24, a day after the petitioner had already been taken into custody. The bench had observed:
“The question arises, how the notice which should have been issued before the petitioner could have been taken into custody under Sections 126, 170 of the B.N.S.S. was issued after they were taken into custody.”
Only the ACP-I, Gautam Buddh Nagar Commissionerate, could answer that, the Court said, and it directed the officer to appear personally with all documents relating to the proceedings under Sections 126, 135 and 170 BNSS. It also noted that the arresting officer had not told the arrested persons that they could meet an advocate of their choice during interrogation.
What happened on August 23
The petitioner, Deepak, a resident of Gautam Buddh Nagar, challenged his detention in connection with a case registered at Police Station Phase-II. Two groups were involved in an incident of violence on August 23, 2026. Police records show that Deepak and four others were taken into custody at 7:34 PM that day under Sections 126, 135 and 170 BNSS.
Later that evening, at 9:39 PM, the FIR in Case Crime No. 370 was registered on a written report by Shiv Ram Sharma. Its allegations are untested, and the High Court has expressed no view on them. As the Court noted, the sequence was undisputed: the petitioner was already in police custody before the FIR was registered, and was then shown as formally arrested in that FIR while he remained in custody.
What the petition said
According to the petition, Deepak was in custody from August 23 and was never physically released, despite an order directing his release on August 24. It said the FIR neither named him nor attributed any specific role to him. It also flagged discrepancies in the arrest papers, including the allegation that the arrest memo recording an arrest on August 24 bore a signature and date of August 23, and argued that an illegal arrest cannot be legitimised merely because a remand order was passed later.
Wednesday in court
DSP Kamlesh Kant (ACP-2, Central Noida) appeared before the bench on Wednesday. Judges questioned how the police had documented the bail-bond procedure, orally pointing out that the record did not show the petitioner being asked whether he was willing to furnish a bail bond of a specific amount, and that the arrest record mentioned no amount either.
Displeased with the documentation, the bench repeated that the officers should be ashamed. Citing the petitioner’s unlawful detention, it allowed the petition and ordered his release forthwith. A detailed written order was not available at the time of writing.
What the case shows
Habeas corpus here was used to test the paper trail of an arrest. The sequence the Court examined, custody first, FIR later, notice after custody, formal arrest while already detained, is the kind of record that a habeas court can scrutinise directly, without waiting for trial.
The bench’s questions on the Section 130 BNSS notice, the missing bail-bond amount and the failure to tell the arrested persons of their right to an advocate also signal that BNSS safeguards will be checked against the police’s own records. The remarks were oral, and the reasons will be clear only when the written order is available.
Case Title: Deepak v. State of Uttar Pradesh (habeas corpus petition; case number not available)
Bench: Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev, Allahabad High Court
Date of Hearing: October 7, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Arpit Malviya and Awadhesh Kumar Malviya for the petitioner