High Court Mandates Compensation for Illegal Detention
The Allahabad High Court has ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to compensate Mansoor Ahmad with ₹2 lakh following his unlawful detention by police authorities for a duration of eight days. This directive came in the case titled Mansoor Ahmad @ Lallu and another v State of UP and 4 Others. A Division Bench comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi instructed that the compensation amount be recovered from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Bara at Prayagraj, after a disciplinary inquiry within a three-month timeframe.
Details of the Court Order
The Court decreed, “We find that petitioner no.1 has been kept in illegal judicial custody for 8 days and therefore, he is directed to be compensated at the rate of ₹25,000 per day, amounting to ₹2 lakhs, for his illegal detention within six weeks by the State Government.” This order was issued on June 8.
Background of the Case
Mansoor Ahmad was apprehended by the police on March 19 under legal provisions aimed at maintaining public peace and preventing cognizable offenses. Following his family’s intervention in the High Court, Ahmad was released on March 27. The Court observed that Ahmad was detained for eight days under Section 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), despite the legal stipulation that custody should not exceed 24 hours.
Legal Findings
The police alleged that Ahmad had caused a public disturbance in Patwari village, leading to potential peace disruption. Ahmad was initially presented before the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) and was sent to judicial custody due to his inability to provide surety. However, the Court noted that the ACP issued the detention order using a preprinted form intended for individuals failing to furnish surety. The petitioner, presented on March 19, was sent directly to judicial custody until March 27.
The Court stated, “There is no recital in the order that on the date of production of petitioner no. 1 before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, he refused to furnish personal bond for keeping the peace. He was directly directed on 19.3.2026 to appear before the Magistrate on 27.03.2026 and on that date bond was taken and he was released. Therefore, it is clear that the provisions of Sections 170, 126, and 135 of the B.N.S.S. were flagrantly violated by the Assistant Commissioner of Police/Special In-charge Magistrate, Commissionerate Prayagraj.”
More Read
Systemic Issues Highlighted
The Court emphasized that if Ahmad failed to provide surety on March 19, he should have been allowed another opportunity on March 20 to furnish a personal bond. The Assistant Commissioner of Police’s decision to fix the next appearance date eight days later resulted in Ahmad’s illegal detention outside legal provisions.
Data presented by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj, revealed that numerous individuals were similarly detained unlawfully: 283 in 2024, 1321 in 2025, and 721 in 2026. The Court remarked on the shocking state of affairs, stating, “The Commissioner of Police has been given the powers of a Magistrate, which are being misused to the hilt.”
Legal Representation
Advocate Pushpendra Singh represented the petitioners, while Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi, alongside Additional Government Advocate Mohd Shoeb Khan, represented the State.
More Read
[Read Judgment]
