Allahabad High Court Orders Enquiry Into Allegations Of Document Fabrication And Perjury Against Police; Directs Release Of Accused
The Allahabad High Court was considering a petition filed by the petitioner who was held in custody in a case registered under Sections 336 (3), 338, 340 (2) of the BNS.
Justice Atul Sreedharan, Justice Achal Sachdev, Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has ordered the Registrar General to look into allegations of fabrication of documents and perjury committed by the police in a criminal case while directing the release of the accused person.
The High Court was considering a petition filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. The petitioner had been held in custody in a case registered under Sections 336 (3), 338, 340(2) of the BNS (corresponding Sections are 467, 468, 471 IPC).
The Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev held, “As regards the offence committed by the police before this Court, this Court considers it necessary to direct the Registrar General of this Court to proceed under Section 379 of BNSS for cases mentioned in Section 215 of BNSS, as the offence has been committed in a judicial proceeding. After the inquiry, if the Registrar General is satisfied that prima facie, an offence relating to fabrication of documents and perjury has been committed before this Court, on the basis of perusal of the documents/records of this case, in such an eventuality, he shall do the needful and file a case before the Court of competent jurisdiction against those found prima facie involved in the offence.”
Senior Advocate Mohammad Rashid represented the Petitioner while Government Advocate represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The petitioner was allegedly taken into custody on August 6, 2026. The petitioner claimed that the details had not been furnished in the arrest memo.
Reasoning
Referring to the items mentioned in the arrest memo, the Bench noted that item 12 showed that there had been an addition, which was made by the Investigating Officer after the arrest memo was given to the petitioner and also the arrest memo that was placed before the remand Magistrate at the time of remand. The Bench found that a similar fabrication was made by altering Item No.13, wherein the investigating officer had given the grounds of arrest that the petitioner had fabricated valuable security and, on the basis of that, he defrauded people.
“It is necessary to mention here that in the original arrest memo, this was never entered into by the I.O. and in order to perfect the arrest memo, perhaps after the habeas corpus petition was filed before this Court, by fabricating entries in Item Nos.12 and 13 of the second page of the arrest memo, which clearly reflect that fabricated document”, it added.
The Bench ordered,“Thus, the present petition is allowed on the grounds of deficiency in disclosing the grounds of arrest, which is perfunctory and inadequate for the petitioner to file a bail application. The petitioner shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case, without prejudice to re-arrest him, subject to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol Vs. State of Punjab…”
The Bench concluded the matter by directing the Registrar General to conduct an enquiry on the offence relating to fabrication of documents and perjury.
Cause Title: Junaid and another v. State of U.P. and 4 others (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:215995-DB)
Appearance
Petitioner: Senior Advocates Mohammad Rashid, Mohd Asif, Subir Lal
Respondent: Government Advocate