Taken into custody at 7:34 PM on August 23, formally arrested at 2:57 PM the next day: the Allahabad High Court has found the detention unlawful, remarked that the UP Police are a Law Unto Themselves, and ordered the man’s release.
Prayagraj: A man held by the Uttar Pradesh Police after a clash between two groups is to be released unless he is wanted in another case, the Allahabad High Court has ordered, after declaring his detention unlawful. The Court also directed that its displeasure be noted in the service books of the Assistant Commissioner of Police and the Investigating Officer, saying that the case reflects a sordid state of affairs in the State police [Deepak v. State of U.P. and Others].
A Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev decided the habeas corpus petition. It expressed no view on the merits of the underlying clash or on any charge against the petitioner, who is presumed innocent.
The Court’s own words
This case reflects the sordid state of affairs prevailing in the Uttar Pradesh Police.
It appears that the police are a law unto themselves.
The State argued that the tense situation after the clash explained the police’s conduct. The Court was not persuaded. It held that the Magistrate had erred by not checking the police papers for compliance, spoke of the police’s lack of concern for civil liberties, and described ACP Kamlesh Kant and Investigating Officer Anuj Kumar as highly ignorant of BNSS procedure.
The directions
Besides ordering the petitioner’s release, the Court asked the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, to prepare better training modules on civil liberties and on pre-arrest and pre-detention procedure. It also laid down that keeping suspects in police stations for more than 24 hours and then releasing them will be treated as malicious unless the police show otherwise, and said such conduct shall not be tolerated.
What the police records showed
The records before the Court spoke of a violent clash between two groups on August 23, 2026. Deepak and four others were taken into custody at 7:34 PM that day under Sections 126, 135 and 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. An FIR followed at 9:39 PM on a written report, and Deepak was formally arrested in it at 2:57 PM on August 24. It was undisputed that he was already in police custody before the FIR was registered.
Dates and blanks that did not add up
The grounds of arrest were signed and dated August 23, though the arrest date recorded in the document was August 24. The personal search and seizure memo bore the officer’s signature and the date August 23 in two places. The Investigating Officer called these errors, but the Court did not accept that, because the discrepancy appeared in five places and was never corrected or authenticated. In the preventive-proceedings papers the bond amount was left blank, and the signature, date and time showing whether the ACP accepted or rejected the bond were missing.
A notice under Section 130 dated August 24 was issued in the name of ACP-I but signed by ACP-II Kamlesh Kant. The Court said there was a strong prima facie case that documents were filled in later and that the petitioner signed a blank paper.
Records, not the clash, decided the case
The order rests on the paperwork rather than on the clash behind the detention. In the Court’s view, a person taken into custody hours before an FIR exists, with grounds of arrest and seizure memos carrying inconsistent dates, cannot be said to have been lawfully arrested, and a Magistrate who remands without checking those papers fails in a duty basic to personal liberty.
By treating prolonged police-station confinement followed by release as presumptively malicious, the Bench has also signalled that informal detention to get around the 24-hour limit will be looked at critically in habeas proceedings. The findings against the two officers are the Court’s observations on the record before it.
Case Title: Deepak v. State of U.P. and Others [habeas corpus petition; case number not available]
Bench: Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev, Allahabad High Court
Date of Order: Not stated at the time of writing (reported October 15, 2026)
Appearances: Not available