The Allahabad High Court has ordered the immediate release of a man whose arrest followed more than 31 hours of illegal detention, holding that a subsequent formal arrest cannot erase the constitutional violations committed by the police.
The Court applied the American legal doctrine of the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ to the law of arrest and detention, ruling that an unlawful detention can invalidate the arrest and the subsequent judicial remand proceedings arising from it.
The ruling came in the case of Ravi Chaurasiya And Another v. State of UP and 4 Others, in which a bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdeva examined the circumstances surrounding Ravi Chaurasiya’s detention.
The Court found that Chaurasiya had been taken into custody by the police at 3:40 am on September 15, 2026, but his detention was not recorded in the General Diary. He was formally arrested only at 10:45 am the following day.
The formal arrest took place after Chaurasiya’s mother approached the High Court on September 15 through a habeas corpus petition seeking information about her son’s whereabouts.
Rejecting the police explanation that the failure to record his custody was an inadvertent mistake, the Court concluded that the omission was deliberate and intended to avoid allegations of illegal detention.
The bench made it clear that the police could not retrospectively legitimise an unlawful detention by preparing an arrest memo and producing the accused before a magistrate.
“The subsequent arrest memo and the remand does not legitimize the initial unlawful detention,” the Court observed, holding that the initial detention had violated the constitutional protections guaranteed under Article 22.
Illegal detention taints subsequent arrest and remand
In reaching its conclusion, the Court examined the doctrine of the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’, which originated in the United States and generally concerns the inadmissibility of evidence obtained through unlawful means.
The bench extended its application beyond the law of evidence, examining how the principle operates in the context of constitutional rights and personal liberty.
The Court held that when an arrest is preceded by unlawful detention, the illegality does not disappear merely because the police subsequently follow the formal procedure for arrest and remand.
It observed that where the initial detention violates Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, the subsequent arrest and remand proceedings can also be rendered unlawful, even if the stated grounds for arrest and the proceedings before the magistrate might otherwise appear valid.
The bench emphasised that the legality of an arrest cannot be assessed in isolation from the circumstances that led to it.
Police explanation rejected
The case arose after Chaurasiya was detained in connection with the purchase of a property belonging to a gangster.
In its response to the habeas corpus petition, Deen Dayal Singh, the Station House Officer of Soraon police station, admitted that Chaurasiya had been taken into custody on September 15 but that the fact had not been entered in the General Diary.
The Court rejected the suggestion that the omission was simply a clerical lapse.
It noted that the formal arrest occurred only after the police became aware of the petition filed by Chaurasiya’s mother, observing that the timing indicated an attempt to shield the authorities from liability for the earlier detention.
The bench also expressed its displeasure over the conduct of the station house officer and directed the Prayagraj Commissioner to conduct an inquiry into the matter.
It further ordered that if the inquiry established negligence on the officer’s part, the Court’s recorded displeasure should be entered into his service record.
Court flags denial of access to legal counsel
The bench also raised concerns over Chaurasiya’s right to consult a lawyer during police questioning.
It found that he had not been informed of his right to legal assistance of his choice. Although the Court noted that this right formally arises upon arrest, it warned against police practices that could circumvent constitutional safeguards.
The Court observed that authorities cannot avoid the obligations attached to a formal arrest by keeping a suspect at a police station, questioning him for several hours and subsequently treating him as an accused based on self-incriminating statements.
Such a practice, the bench said, could undermine the right against self-incrimination, particularly when the individual is questioned without access to legal counsel.
Referring to Section 38 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Court said the police must inform a person taken into custody, even before formal arrest, of the right to have an advocate of their choice present during interrogation.
Failure to comply with this requirement, it held, would vitiate information supplied by the suspect, particularly self-incriminating statements.
₹30,000 compensation, release ordered
Allowing the habeas corpus petition, the High Court directed the State to pay Chaurasiya ₹30,000 in compensation for his unlawful detention.
The bench ordered his immediate release, provided he was not wanted in any other case. It further clarified that any future arrest in the matter could be made only pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by the magistrate concerned.
The Court’s ruling underscores that constitutional protections against unlawful detention cannot be defeated by completing arrest formalities after the violation has already occurred.