Holding that a five-day illegal detention at a Deoria police station showed an officer’s “arrogance of authority”, the Allahabad High Court has ordered the release of a young husband and awarded him Rs 1.25 lakh in compensation.
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has allowed a habeas corpus petition and ordered the release of Chandan Rajbhar, after the Uttar Pradesh Police’s own inquiry admitted that he was held in illegal detention at Police Station Salempur, District Deoria, for five days before his arrest was formally shown. The Court awarded him compensation at Rs 25,000 for each day, Rs 1,25,000 in all [Gyanti Devi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others].
A Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev passed the order on October 29, 2026 in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 1449 of 2026.
The case
The petition was filed by Chandan Rajbhar’s mother, Gyanti Devi, and his wife for his release. According to the petition, the couple married at a Durga temple in Siwan district, Bihar, and moved to Pune, where they lived together as husband and wife.
The wife’s mother had lodged an FIR on July 18, 2026, registered as Case Crime No. 234 of 2026 under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) at Police Station Salempur. It alleged that on July 14, 2026, Chandan Rajbhar eloped with her 18-year-old daughter.
The petition stated that during the intervening night of August 24 and 25, 2026, police personnel from Salempur, accompanied by the wife’s father, reached the couple’s home in Pune, took both of them into custody and brought them to the police station during the night of August 27 and 28. Their mobile phones were taken away, but the wife managed to send a message to Chandan’s younger brother abroad, who alerted the family. Gyanti Devi then went to the police station on August 28 and sat there the entire day.
Chandan Rajbhar’s case was that he was kept in unlawful detention from August 28 to September 2, 2026, and that his arrest memo was prepared only on September 2.
The police’s own inquiry
By an earlier order of October 9, 2026, the Court had directed the police to produce the CCTV recordings of Police Station Salempur from 6 p.m. on August 27 to 10 p.m. on September 2, 2026. The footage was produced, but counsel for the State told the Court that the footage need not be examined in view of the affidavit of Abhijeet R. Shankar, Superintendent of Police, Deoria.
The State relied on a report dated October 21, 2026, prepared by Circle Officer Rajesh Chaturvedi after an inquiry into the conduct of the Investigating Officer, Deep Narayan Yadav. The Court recorded:
“Thus, the report of the Circle Officer accepts the fact that petitioner No.2 was kept under unlawful detention for five days at P.S. Salempur and that his fabricated arrest was shown on 02.09.2026, as per the said report, whereafter he was produced before the Magistrate for remand. The report further records a finding that the I.O., in contravention of his duties and in gross dereliction thereof, had acted in a negligent manner.”
On the basis of that report, the Superintendent of Police passed an order on October 21, 2026 initiating departmental proceedings against the Investigating Officer. The Bench said it appreciated the “candour and honesty” of the Circle Officer and the follow-up action of the SP.
“Business as usual”
Allowing the petition, the Court directed that Chandan Rajbhar be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. On the officer’s conduct, it said:
“As regards the compensation prayed for in this particular case, the manner in which the I.O. has demonstrated his arrogance of authority, by detaining petitioner No.2 for full five days without even thinking twice and without following the procedure established by law, makes it appear that he considered it business as usual. Therefore, this Court expects that, if the I.O. is found guilty as charged in the departmental inquiry, the harshest punishment for his deliberate actions be considered to be imposed upon him.”
ALSO READ: Calcutta High Court Orders Rs 5.36 Lakh Compensation For Man Jailed 60 Days After Bail
The directions
On compensation, the Bench held:
“As regards compensation, this Court is of the opinion that, for the period of five days undergone by petitioner No.2 in custody without adherence to the procedure established by law, compensation at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per day is granted, which amounts to Rs.1,25,000/-. This shall not preclude the right of petitioner No.2 to sue the Police Department in an action in tort for damages.”
The Court said the compensation shall be recovered from those found guilty, after an inquiry, of having detained him, and that the State may effect such recovery if it so desires. It also requested the State to record its appreciation of Circle Officer Rajesh Chaturvedi of Rudrapur and SP Abhijeet R. Shankar in their service records for making “a full and true disclosure” of the Investigating Officer’s actions.
The Bench clarified that its observations will not affect the criminal case pending against Chandan Rajbhar, which is to be decided by the trial court on the evidence alone. The allegations in the FIR remain untested, the High Court has expressed no view on their merits, and he is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Why the order matters
Showing an arrest days after a person has actually been picked up is a familiar way of keeping detention off the books and dodging the constitutional rule that an arrested person must be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours. Here the gap was not left to be argued. The police’s own inquiry admitted it, and the High Court treated that admission as enough to find a breach of Article 21 and order release in habeas corpus.
The order also sets out a working template for public-law compensation: a fixed daily rate for each day of unlawful custody, an express right to sue in tort for more, and recovery from the officers found responsible. Its praise for the Circle Officer and the SP signals that the courts will credit honest internal accountability, while asking for the harshest penalty for the officer who made the detention possible.
Case Title: Gyanti Devi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others [Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 1449 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev, Allahabad High Court
Date of Order: October 29, 2026
For Petitioners: Awadhesh Kumar, Advocate
For Respondents: Government Advocate