The Allahabad High Court termed the situation “shocking” after records showed that 4,847 people were placed in preventive detention in Prayagraj and Ghaziabad over two years. The Court expressed concern that many detainees remained jailed for days or weeks despite statutory safeguards under the law.
The Allahabad High Court described a “shocking state of affairs” in Uttar Pradesh’s police commissionerates after records indicated that, over the previous two years, at least 4,847 individuals were placed in preventive detention in Prayagraj and Ghaziabad. The court noted that many were kept in jail for days and in some cases weeks despite safeguards required under the law.
A division bench comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Prayagraj resident Mansoor Ahmad alias Lallu. He had been kept in judicial custody for eight days under Sections 170, 126 and 135 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (which correspond to earlier provisions under Sections 151, 107 and 116 of the CrPC).
Holding the detention illegal, the court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay Mansoor Ahmad compensation of Rs 2 lakh. It further ordered that the amount be recovered from the Assistant Commissioner of Police concerned after conducting a disciplinary inquiry.
The bench examined the material placed before it and noted that 2,522 persons had been detained under Sections 170, 126 and 135 BNSS in Ghaziabad between May 2025 and April 2026. Detention periods ranged from one day to 17 days.
In Prayagraj, the court recorded that 283 persons were detained in 2024, 1,321 in 2025, and another 721 in 2026 up to the time of the hearing. The court observed that several detainees remained in judicial custody for periods extending from a few days to several weeks.
The case arose from the family’s allegations that police personnel from Khiri police station in Prayagraj picked up Mansoor Ahmad from his home in the early hours of March 19, 2026. His family stated they were not informed of the grounds for his arrest. They also claimed that when they later saw him at the police station, he was in a poor condition.
ALSO READ: Mere Apprehension of Repeat Offences Cannot Justify Preventive Detention: Supreme Court
The State defended the detention, saying Mansoor had abused villagers and that there was apprehension of breach of peace. According to the police, he was detained under preventive provisions of the BNSS and produced before the Assistant Commissioner of Police exercising magisterial powers.
However, after reviewing the records, the court found that the arrest memo did not specify the grounds for arrest. It also noted that the Assistant Commissioner’s order sent Mansoor directly to jail on March 19 and fixed March 27 as the next date without recording that he had refused to furnish a personal bond.
The bench held that if Mansoor had not furnished the personal bond on March 19, he should have been given an opportunity to do so the next day. Instead, the court found that he remained incarcerated for eight days.
The bench concluded that the provisions of Sections 170, 126 and 135 BNSS had been “flagrantly violated” and that Mansoor had been kept in illegal detention “dehors the provisions of law”.
The bench stated that the figures placed before it pointed to a troubling pattern in how the commissionerate system was being used. It observed that powers vested in Commissioners of Police acting as Magistrates were being misused.
Referring to the detention data, the court reiterated the “shocking state of affairs” in the Prayagraj Commissionerate. It said individuals were being sent to jail through preventive proceedings and kept there for days or weeks in a manner that ran contrary to the safeguards contemplated under the law.
Applying directions issued earlier in a similar Ghaziabad case, the court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs 25,000 per day for Mansoor’s eight-day illegal detention, totaling Rs 2 lakh. It directed the State Government to release the payment within six weeks and recover it from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Bara, Prayagraj, after completing disciplinary proceedings within three months.
The court also ordered the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, to file a compliance report before the High Court by September 14, 2026. It added that failure to comply would require the Commissioner of Police to remain personally present before the court.
Case Title: Mansoor Ahmad @ Lallu and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
