The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay ₹2 lakh in compensation to a man who was unlawfully kept in custody for eight days, while also ordering disciplinary proceedings against the police officer responsible for the detention.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Siddharth and Vinai Kumar Dwivedi held that Mansoor Ahmad was deprived of his liberty in clear violation of legal safeguards. The Court calculated compensation at ₹25,000 for each day of illegal detention and instructed the State to release the amount within six weeks. It further directed that the sum be recovered from the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Bara, Prayagraj, after completion of a departmental inquiry to be concluded within three months.
The case stemmed from Ahmad’s detention on March 19 under preventive provisions intended to maintain public order and avert potential offences. He remained behind bars until March 27, when he was released following intervention by the High Court.
Examining the record, the Bench found that Ahmad had been confined under Section 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), despite the law not permitting custody beyond 24 hours in the circumstances of the case.
Authorities claimed Ahmad had been taken into custody after allegedly abusing residents of Patwari village, creating apprehension of a breach of peace. According to the police, he was produced before the ACP and later sent to judicial custody because he failed to furnish sureties.
The Court, however, found serious procedural defects. It noted that the ACP had relied on a pre-printed format typically used in cases involving failure to furnish sureties. The order showed that Ahmad was produced on March 19 and immediately remanded until March 27.
Crucially, the Bench observed that the order contained no indication that Ahmad had refused to execute a personal bond to maintain peace. Instead of being given an opportunity to comply with legal requirements within a reasonable timeframe, he was directed to remain in custody and return only after eight days.
The judges concluded that the provisions governing such proceedings under the BNSS had been openly disregarded. They remarked that even if sureties were unavailable on the first day, the authorities could have provided another opportunity on the following day to furnish a personal bond.
By fixing the next hearing eight days later, the ACP effectively ensured that Ahmad remained incarcerated without legal justification, the Court held.
The proceedings also brought to light troubling figures from Prayagraj. Data supplied by the Chief Judicial Magistrate revealed that hundreds of people had allegedly been detained in similar violation of legal requirements—283 in 2024, 1,321 in 2025, and 721 during 2026 up to the date of the report.
Expressing alarm at the numbers, the High Court described the situation within the Prayagraj Commissionerate as deeply disturbing. The Bench observed that magisterial powers entrusted to the police administration appeared to be facing widespread misuse, raising serious concerns about adherence to procedural safeguards designed to protect individual liberty.
