In a significant legal development, a court in Uttar Pradesh has instructed the filing of a First Information Report (FIR) against a Station House Officer (SHO) for unlawfully detaining an individual and manipulating official records to validate the detention. This directive was issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Kasganj, Khan Zishan Masood, in the case titled State of UP v Sanjay Yadav.
The court’s ruling underscores that the SHO’s actions cannot be shielded under the guise of official duty. CJM Masood emphatically stated, “None of the acts of the SHO fall within the purview of ‘act done in discharge of duty’. Illegal detention without any authority of law and effecting false and fictitious GD entries cannot be said to be ‘act done under discharge of duty’.”
This order, dated June 3, emerged from a complaint lodged on behalf of Sanjay Yadav. The complaint claimed that Yadav was taken into custody on April 28, 2026, and was held at the police station without due legal process and was denied the opportunity to consult a lawyer.
CCTV footage reviewed by the court corroborated Yadav’s presence outside the lock-up from the afternoon of April 28 until late night on April 29. The SHO later conceded that Yadav was at the police station until April 30, yet failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the detention.
The charges against Yadav included Sections 85 BNS (cruelty by husband or relatives), 115(2) BNS (voluntarily causing hurt), 352 BNS (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), and 351(3) BNS (criminal intimidation). The court clarified that these charges typically do not necessitate immediate arrest, as they are considered less severe and are usually addressed with a notice for appearance under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). However, such a notice was not issued in this case.
Moreover, Yadav’s right to legal consultation, as outlined in Section 38 BNSS, was infringed upon. A General Diary entry dated April 30 accused Yadav of causing a disturbance outside the police station. Nonetheless, both CCTV evidence and a report by the Superintendent of Police, Kasganj, demonstrated that this entry was false, as Yadav was inside the station at that time.
Based on the evidence, including the SHO’s explanation and a supervisory report, the court concluded there was a strong prima facie case of criminal conduct. “This court is of the firm opinion that the SHO, Sahawar is prima facie guilty of the offence of illegal detention as well as forgery,” stated the court.
The CJM therefore ordered the registration of an FIR against SHO Govind Ballabh under Sections 127(2) BNS (wrongful confinement by a public servant) and Sections 336, 337, and 344 BNS (offences related to forgery). A copy of the court order has been dispatched to the Superintendent of Police for enforcement, and a departmental inquiry into the officer’s conduct is already in process.
More Read
Advocate Rajat Yadav represented Sanjay Yadav in this matter.
