The Allahabad High Court has delivered a stern rebuke to police authorities, ordering that ₹1.25 lakh in compensation be paid to a citizen who was subjected to five days of illegal detention. In a judgment that underscores the sanctity of personal liberty, a division bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev highlighted the severe implications of police overreach and the deliberate circumvention of legal procedures.
The case centres on Chandan Rajbhar, who was taken into custody after an FIR was lodged against him regarding allegations that he had eloped with an 18-year-old woman. Following their marriage, the couple had relocated to Pune. According to reports, police personnel, accompanied by the woman’s father, travelled to Pune to secure the couple and return them to Uttar Pradesh. Upon their return, Rajbhar was held in secret confinement from August 28 to September 2, 2026, without formal documentation of his arrest during that period.
The court proceedings revealed that an internal police inquiry, conducted by Circle Officer Rajesh Chaturvedi, confirmed that the Investigating Officer, Deep Narayan Yadav, had deliberately detained Rajbhar without following the due process of law. Furthermore, the inquiry report substantiated that the officer had falsified the arrest date, officially documenting it as September 2 to cover up the five-day window of unauthorized detention.
In its strongly worded order, the high court condemned the actions of the Investigating Officer as a manifestation of the “arrogance of authority.” The bench observed that the officer had acted as if the police force operated above the law, arbitrarily infringing upon the fundamental rights of a citizen. The court remarked that such behaviour represents a flagrant abuse of power, warranting not only judicial intervention but also significant disciplinary consequences to ensure accountability.
Addressing the matter of compensation, the bench established a strict monetary penalty for the violation of personal liberty, fixing the amount at ₹25,000 for each day of the five-day illegal confinement. Crucially, the court ruled that this compensation must not be drawn from the public exchequer. Instead, it mandated that the state recover the total sum directly from the salaries or personal funds of the guilty police personnel involved in the incident.
The court further recommended the “harshest punishment” for the Investigating Officer, emphasising that such professional misconduct requires firm disciplinary action. The judicial directive serves as a strong signal that arbitrary detentions and the falsification of arrest records will be met with severe scrutiny by the judiciary. By requiring the officers to pay for their transgressions out of pocket, the court aims to create a deterrent effect, reinforcing the principle that public servants remain accountable under the law.
This case serves as a significant precedent for administrative accountability, reiterating the high court's commitment to protecting citizens from the excesses of those in power. As the proceedings conclude, the court's stance remains clear: the state's authority cannot be used to bypass constitutional safeguards, and individuals responsible for such violations must bear the personal cost of their actions.
Comments