Specially-Abled Advocate Illegally Detained For 3 Days: Allahabad High Court Issues Strict Preventive Detention Guidelines, Orders ₹75K Compensation
The Court held continued detention beyond 24 hours without justification as unconstitutional, directs mandatory recording of refusal to execute bond, and fixes personal liability of erring police and Magistrates.
The Allahabad High Court while criticising the continued practice of police officials and Magistrates sending persons to jail in preventive proceedings despite the State's 2021 policy against illegal detention, has framed strict guidelines. Holding that personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be curtailed except in strict compliance with BNSS safeguards, the Court directed compensation for unlawful detention beyond 24 hours and imposed personal accountability on erring police and magistracy officials.
In the matter, a specially-abled practising advocate, was allegedly illegally detained, when he was taken into custody by the Police on March 22, 2026 in Ghaziabad and was not produced before the Magistrate within the statutory 24-hour period. Although proceedings under Sections 170, 126 and 135 BNSS were initiated and bail bonds were subsequently furnished, the petitioner was still sent to jail and remained in custody till March 25, 2026, when he was released following judicial intervention.
The Court directed that in preventive detention cases under BNSS or Cr.P.C., only a personal bond up to ₹20,000 without surety may be taken. It further held that refusal to execute the bond must be recorded in writing and through audio-visual means before sending the person to custody.
Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi observed, “We find that there exists a State Government policy decision dated 23.03.2021. Despite the said policy decision, the police officials of the State and the Magistrates are acting in a highly irresponsible manner by sending persons brought before them, only to prevent breach of peace, to jail for days together. The amount of compensation of ₹ 25,000/- for such breach was fixed in the year 2021 by the State Government and it deserves to be enhanced by the State Government by framing a new policy after the coming into force of the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)…”.
Considering the number of days, he was held in custody and the fact that he was released after filing of the petition on oral direction of the Court, the Bench noted further, “…he is held entitled to compensation of Rs.75,000/- at the rate Rs.25,000/- per day of illegal detention. It shall be paid to petitioner no.1 within six weeks by the State Government. Thereafter the amount shall be recovered by the State Government from Assistant Commissioner of Police, Shalimar Garden, Ghaziabad and/or from S.H.O., Police Station Teelamodh, Ghaziabad, whosoever is found at fault or both, proportionally after conducting disciplinary inquiry against both of them within three months”.
Advocate Gautam appeared for the petitioners and Anoop Trivedi, A.A.G. appeared for the respondents.
Rejecting the State’s justification, the Court held that continued custody despite execution or readiness to execute bond constituted a violation of statutory mandate and fundamental rights. It emphasised that preventive jurisdiction is not punitive and cannot be exercised in a mechanical or excessive manner.
It further ordered recovery of the amount from the salaries of the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Police and/or Station House Officer after disciplinary inquiry, if they are found responsible.
The Bench noted, “Until a new policy is brought into force by the State Government and keeping in view flagrant violation of right to liberty of the illegally detained and jailed persons, we direct as follows” :
(i). We hereby direct that after preventive detention of any person under the provisions of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) or Cr.P.C., he shall be required to furnish a personal bond (signature bond without deposit of any money) binding him to keep peace and maintain good behaviour. The amount of such bond shall not exceed 20,000/- and no ₹ surety shall be required to be furnished. In case amount of bond is increased, reasons for the same shall be given by the Magistrate in writing. On the date of detention, if bond is executed by the person detained, he shall be set free.
(ii). In case accused refuses to execute the personal bond for keeping peace on being produced before the Magistrate/ Commissioner of Police on the same day, his refusal shall be recorded by means of written and audio-visual mode before sending him to jail. He shall be produced before the Magistrate on the date stated by him at the time of his refusal to furnish personal bond to enable him to produce personal bond on the day chosen by him.
(iii). Further, in cases where a person is detained for more than 24 hours in violation of this order, without any plausible reason, an amount of ₹25,000/- per day shall be payable to the detained person as compensation by the State Government. The said amount shall be recovered by deduction from the salary of the concerned Magistrate and/or police officer, or both, as the case may be, if they are found responsible for the default, after conducting disciplinary proceedings against them and fixing their liability.
(iv). The Magistrate and/or police official prima facie found responsible for the lapse, or both, shall be subjected to disciplinary proceedings for dereliction of duty as per their relevant service Rules.
Cause Title: Chander Pal Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 214 of 2026
Appearances:
Petitioners: Gautam, Jitendra Rana, Mohd. Shamim, Rajrshi Gupta, Advocates.
Respondents: Anoop Trivedi, A.A.G., Mohd. Shoeb Khan, AGA-I.