Court awards Rs. 30,000 compensation for unlawful custody and orders immediate release of petitioner; emphasizes police duty to inform right to counsel under BNSS 2023 Section 38
In a landmark judgment dated September 28, 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Division Bench) unequivocally condemned illegal police detention practices and underscored the constitutional safeguards guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution. The case, Ravi Chaurasiya v. State of U.P., arose from the unlawful detention of the petitioner, Ravi Chaurasiya, who was kept in police custody beyond the permissible 24-hour period without an entry in the General Diary (G.D.) and without production before a Magistrate.
The petitioner was taken into custody by the police on the night of September 14, 2026, from Ayodhya and brought to Soraon Police Station, Prayagraj. However, the police did not record his arrest or produce him before a Magistrate within 24 hours as mandated by law. The petitioner's mother filed a habeas corpus petition on September 15, 2026, after which the police formalized the arrest on September 16, 2026, at 10:45 a.m., creating a G.D. entry only post-filing of the petition.
The Court examined the police's counter affidavit, where the Station House Officer (SHO) admitted to a deliberate omission in making the G.D. entry to evade liability for illegal detention. Rejecting the claim of inadvertence, the Court held that such gross negligence amounted to intentional wrongdoing ("culpa lata dolo aequiparatur").
Critically, the Court applied the American criminal jurisprudence principle known as the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" doctrine, albeit in the context of constitutional law rather than evidence law. While Indian courts do not exclude evidence obtained unlawfully under this doctrine, the Court held that when the initial detention is unconstitutional, any subsequent arrest and remand proceedings are also vitiated, as they stem from the illegal act. This is consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab (2026), which mandates strict compliance with constitutional safeguards on arrest and detention.
The Court further emphasized the obligations under Section 38 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which requires police to inform suspects of their right to legal counsel upon arrest or interrogation. The petitioner was not informed of this right during his unlawful detention and interrogation, rendering any self-incriminatory statements inadmissible. The Court made it clear that the police cannot circumvent these protections by delaying formal arrest while conducting interrogation.
As a consequence of the violations, the Court awarded Rs. 30,000 as compensation to the petitioner, to be recovered from the responsible police officers. It also ordered the petitioner's immediate release unless held on other lawful grounds. The Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, to conduct a departmental inquiry and hold accountable those responsible for the illegal detention, with the possibility of recording official displeasure against the erring SHO in his service record.
Importantly, the Court recognized the police's right to re-arrest the petitioner but emphasized that any prospective arrest must comply with the Supreme Court's guidelines-requiring a magistrate's warrant and departmental action against officers responsible for initial illegal detention.
This judgment fortifies the constitutional protections against illegal detention and arrest, reiterates the mandatory police duty to maintain transparency through General Diary entries, and enshrines the right to legal counsel as a fundamental safeguard during police custody and interrogation.
Bottom Line:
Habeas corpus - Illegal police detention beyond 24 hours without General Diary entry and without production before Magistrate - Subsequent formal arrest and remand held vitiated by application of "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine in constitutional context - Compensation awarded and release of corpus directed, Section 38 BNSS held applicable even when suspect is taken to police station for interrogation and must be informed of right to counsel.
Statutory provision(s):
Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, Section 38 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)
Ravi Chaurasiya v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2991979
