Rs 30,000 and a police inquiry: that is what the Allahabad High Court has attached to an undocumented stay in the Soraon police lock-up, holding that Subsequent Arrest Cannot Cure Illegal Detention.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Prayagraj: Finding that a man’s formal arrest and remand had been preceded by an undisclosed police detention, the Allahabad High Court has declared both the arrest and the remand proceedings vitiated, ordered his release, and directed that Rs 30,000 compensation be recovered from those responsible for the detention [Ravi Chaurasiya and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others].
The habeas corpus petitions were allowed by a Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev. It asked the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj to inquire into the matter and fix responsibility, and said that if the inquiry finds negligence on the part of the Soraon Station House Officer, the Court’s displeasure must be entered in his service record.
The rule the Bench laid down
The core of the ruling is a single proposition, which the Court framed through the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree.
“In a situation where the subsequent arrest follows an unlawful detention of the corpus, the arrest is rendered unlawful as so are the proceedings of remand by the judicial magistrate as the genesis leading to the arrest was the unlawful detention of the accused violating his right under Art 22”
The doctrine originated in American criminal jurisprudence, and the Bench clarified that Indian courts have not applied it in the same manner in the law of evidence. It said, though, that it could be examined in the context of the civil liberties protected under Part III of the Constitution, and held that it applies to detention and arrest. Here, the initial unlawful detention is the “poisonous tree” and the actions that followed from it are the “fruit”.
For support, the Bench relied on the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab, which held that an arrest violating Article 22(1) vitiates subsequent remand orders and that a chargesheet and cognizance would not validate such an arrest. Police, the Court held, “cannot be permitted to legitimize an arrest” that follows an unlawful detention.
From Ayodhya to a Prayagraj lock-up
As the petitioner told it, he was taken into police custody from Ayodhya on September 14, 2026, and brought to Soraon Police Station in Prayagraj, with no arrest shown at that stage. His mother went to the police station on September 15 to ascertain his well-being, and a habeas corpus petition was then filed before the High Court.
The formal arrest came at 10:45 am on September 16. The police recorded it in the General Diary, had him medically examined and produced him before a Magistrate, who remanded him to judicial custody. The Court had earlier called for CCTV footage from the police station, but found that the counter affidavit filed by the Station House Officer and the Investigating Officer itself admitted the petitioner’s custody.
An “inadvertent mistake” that the Court did not accept
The Station House Officer put the failure to record the petitioner’s presence in the General Diary down to an “inadvertent mistake”. The Bench was not persuaded: an experienced police officer, it observed, could not have failed to record that a person had been brought to the station and lodged in the lock-up. Citing the maxim culpa lata dolo aequiparatur, the Court said gross negligence is treated in law as equivalent to intentional wrongdoing, and it called the omission a “conscious omission” aimed at escaping liability.
It also noted that the formal arrest was made only after the police became aware of the habeas corpus petition, and concluded that the petitioner remained in police custody for more than 24 hours without being produced before a Judicial Magistrate.
Counsel before arrest: Section 38 BNSS
A second lapse was found under Section 38 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which concerns an accused’s right to meet an advocate of his choice during investigation. The petitioner was neither told of this right nor given a chance to have counsel present. According to the Bench, the safeguard cannot be sidestepped by taking a suspect to the police station for interrogation without formally arresting him and then relying on self-incriminating statements made there. The duty under Section 38, it held, arises even before a person is formally arrested or made an accused.
The directions
The petitioner is to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case, though the police remain free to re-arrest him in accordance with law and the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court. The Rs 30,000 compensation is to be recovered from those responsible, and the Commissioner, Prayagraj is to conduct an inquiry and take appropriate action against them. The habeas corpus petition was disposed of accordingly.
Why the order matters
Custodial-practice cases often expose the same gap: an undocumented stay in the lock-up that is later regularised by a formal arrest entry. By holding that the later arrest and remand are tainted by the earlier detention, the Court removes the incentive to backdate or delay the paperwork once a habeas corpus petition is filed.
The decision also carries the Section 38 BNSS duty back to the interrogation stage before arrest, and ties accountability to individual officers through an inquiry, a recovery of compensation and an entry in the service record.
Case Title: Ravi Chaurasiya and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others
Bench: Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev, Allahabad High Court
Order uploaded: October 7, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Imran Ullah, assisted by Advocate Devesh Kumar Shukla, for the petitioner