The Allahabad High Court has sharply pulled up the Noida police over the illegal detention of a man in Gautam Buddha Nagar, observing that the state of the police in Uttar Pradesh is in a pathetic condition. Hearing a habeas corpus petition, a division bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev termed the actions of the police prima facie illegal and rebuked the officers involved. During the proceedings, the bench orally told the Assistant Commissioner of Police and the concerned Station House Officer of Gautam Buddha Nagar that they should be ashamed of themselves, remarking that officials appear to operate under the belief that they can act with impunity and get away with it.
Court Questions Sequence of Detention and Formal Arrest
The petition was filed on behalf of Deepak, a resident of Gautam Buddha Nagar, challenging his detention by the local police in connection with a local case. According to police records presented in court, violence broke out between two rival groups on August 23. Following the clash, Deepak and four others were detained under sections 126, 135, and 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Only after these detentions had occurred was a formal first information report registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by Shivram Sharma. The petitioner pointed out that he was already held in police custody before the complaint was lodged, and was subsequently shown as arrested in the same case. The petitioner also argued that multiple persons were named in the complaint, but his name was not among them, nor was any specific role attributed to him.
Irregularity Noted in Timing of BNSS Notices
The division bench raised serious concerns regarding the procedural timeline, particularly the issuance of notices under section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The court noted that an executive magistrate issued the section 130 notice to Deepak on August 24, a full day after he had already been taken into police custody. Questioning the legal validity of this sequence, the bench asked how a mandatory statutory notice required prior to taking a person into custody under sections 126 and 170 could be issued retrospectively. The judges treated this discrepancy as a fundamental breach of standard procedure, noting that law enforcement agencies cannot bypass required statutory steps to retroactively justify deprivation of personal liberty.
Focus on Accountability and Lawful Procedure
The court reiterated that strict compliance with procedural safeguards is mandatory whenever the personal liberty of a citizen is at stake. The bench noted that taking an individual into custody prior to the registration of an FIR and later showing him as formally arrested in that same proceeding severely undermines the legitimacy of police action. Emphasizing that law enforcement agencies are expected to adhere strictly to statutory procedures, the high court placed its displeasure on record and noted that the timing of the notices and the chronology of the detention will remain under close scrutiny.
Follow for daily updates on cybercrime, corporate fraud, DFIR, hacking, investigations, and digital forensics
