Allahabad High Court Awards ₹1.25 Lakh for Five Days of Illegal Police Detention

Compensation for unlawful custody

The Allahabad High Court has directed the State to pay ₹1.25 lakh to Chandan Rajbhar after police records acknowledged that he was held at a Deoria police station for five days before a formal arrest was shown. A Bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev allowed a habeas corpus petition and fixed compensation at ₹25,000 for each day of detention without lawful procedure. The Court made clear that the award does not prevent Rajbhar from pursuing an ordinary civil claim for damages. It also said the State may recover compensation from officers found responsible following an inquiry. The decision addresses the legality and consequences of custody; it does not resolve the separate criminal accusation against him.

The petition and arrest chronology

Rajbhar became the subject of a police investigation after a complaint alleged that he had taken an adult woman away with an intention connected to marriage. The woman's age and the parties' accounts were before the authorities, but those issues were not the basis for authorising detention outside legal procedure. The habeas corpus petition said police had taken Rajbhar and the woman from Pune and brought them to Salempur police station. Rajbhar maintained that he was confined there from 28 August until 2 September 2026, when an arrest memo was prepared and he was produced for remand. The High Court initially required CCTV footage covering the relevant period. A subsequent police inquiry supplied the decisive information about his custody.

What the police inquiry found

A Circle Officer's inquiry report, forwarded to the Superintendent of Police in October, accepted that the investigating officer had deliberately kept Rajbhar at the station for the five-day period before recording an arrest. The State placed that report before the Court. The Superintendent had initiated departmental proceedings against the investigating officer. The Bench appreciated the officers who disclosed the true position and acted on it, rather than defending the unexplained custody. Once the State's own record established the relevant facts, the judges found it unnecessary to examine the CCTV footage to decide the habeas corpus claim. The report's findings supported a public-law remedy for the deprivation of liberty.

The constitutional wrong and remedy

The Court criticised the investigating officer's conduct as an exercise of authority without the procedure required by law. The compensation rate was tied to the five days established on the record, yielding ₹1,25,000. This is a remedy for unlawful detention, not a substitute for determining the criminal case or for a full tort damages trial. The Court expressly preserved Rajbhar's ability to sue the Police Department for additional damages. It contemplated recovery from officers found guilty after departmental inquiry, so personal financial responsibility was linked to a separate determination rather than conclusively imposed on an individual in the habeas corpus order. The judges also indicated that serious disciplinary consequences should be considered if misconduct is proved.

What remains unresolved

The order did not quash the criminal case. It directed that the prosecution be tried and concluded on the evidence presented before the appropriate court. Rajbhar's release from unlawful custody and the compensation award therefore do not amount to a finding of innocence on the underlying accusation. Equally, the existence of an FIR did not excuse days of unrecorded confinement. The distinction matters because criminal investigation and lawful detention are governed by separate requirements. Authorities can pursue a supported allegation while observing arrest safeguards, recording custody honestly and placing the person before a court within the prescribed process. A false or delayed arrest record undermines those safeguards.

Broader significance for police accountability

The case shows how a habeas corpus petition can expose a gap between actual physical custody and the date on an arrest record. An independent internal inquiry was decisive because it documented the period police initially failed to treat as formal detention. The High Court's willingness to award per-day compensation recognises that the loss of liberty has a remedy even while a criminal trial remains pending. The separate disciplinary process and possible State recovery provide further accountability routes, subject to findings against the persons concerned. Accurate reporting must keep these stages distinct: unlawful confinement was accepted on the record, but individual departmental guilt and the underlying criminal charge still require their own lawful determinations.